1



### RON ALD DE NN IS CR AF TON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Henry County No. 11798 C. Cr eed Mc Ginley, Judge

No. W2005-01108-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled Janu ary 25, 2006

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Ron a ld D e nn is Craf ton , a pp e a ls the tr ia l c ou rt ' s d e nia l of his mot ion to r e op e n h is pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n p e tit ion . T he Sta te ha s f ile d a mot ionre qu e sti ng that this C ou rt dis mis s the abo ve -c apti on e d a

pp e a l, o r in the a lte rn a tiv e , af fi rm the tr ia l cou rt ' s den ia l of re lie f p ur su a nt t o Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. Be cause Petitioner has fa iled to properly invoke this Court’s jurisdi ction, the above -ca ptioned appea l is dism issed.

Te nn. R . App. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS AND A L AN E. G L EN N , J J . joined.

Ronald Dennis Craf

ton, pro se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; J ohn H. Bledsoe, Assis tant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, the State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On No ve mbe r 7 , 1 99 1, the Pe tit ion e r, Ron a ld D e nn is Cr a ft on , wa s c on vic te d of tw o c ou nts of ra pe, cla ss B fe lonies. See Ronald Crafton v. Jay Dukes , No. W2001-00320-CCA-R3-CO, 2001 WL 1042120, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Sept. 6, 2001). Afte r his conviction, while out on bond awa iting sente ncing , Petitioner Crafton lef t the state. Id. He was subsequently sentenc ed in ab se nti a to twelve y ear s on eac h count with the sentenc es to be served conse cutively for a n eff ective sentenc e of twe nty -four

y ear s. Id. On April 26, 1994, he was transporte d from Indiana, whe re he2

was incar cer ated, back to T ennesse e to beg in service of his Tenne ssee se ntence s. Id. The Petitioner filed a pe tition for post-c onviction relief on N ovember 20, 1996, which wa s dismis sed by the trial court as time-barr ed. On Dec ember 14, 2000, he filed a petition f or habea s corpus re lief, which w as also denied. Id.

On Janu ary

19 , 2 00 5, the Pe tit ion e r fi le d a motio n to re op e n h is p os t- c on vic tio n p e tit ionin the Henry CountyCircuit Court. As basis for the motion, the P et i t i o n er ma de various alleg ations

re g ard ing the ine ff

e c tiv e ne ss o f t

ri a l c ou ns e l, i nc lud ing that his tr ia l a tto rn e y faile d to pr e se nt n e wl y discovere d scientific e vidence
, i.e.
, the vic tim ’s re c a nte d te sti mon y , e sta bli sh ing that he is a c tua lly innocent of the offe nses for which he w as convic ted. B y order enter ed May

3, 2005, the trial court dismiss ed the motion, finding that the Petitioner had failed to assert a colora ble claim. On Ma y

10, 2005, the Petitioner filed a “ Notice of Appea l” with the cler

k of the He nry

CountyCircuit Clerk.
On appe al to this Court, t he S tate seeks summary aff irmance of the lowe r court’s denial, or, in the alternative, arg ues that this Court is wit hout jurisdiction to entert ai n t he above -ca ptioned

app e a l a s Pe tit ion e r f

a ile d to pr op e rl y pe rf

e c t a n app lic a tio n fo r pe rm iss ion to app e a l. I n r e sp on se to the State’s motion, the Petiti oner a sserts that due pr ocess tolls the time-period for filing a pe tition fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f andpe rm its re vie w o f h is c la ims

.

I n s eeking revie w of the tria l court' s denial of a motion to reopen, a pe titioner shall file, within ten day s of t he lower court' s ruling, an application in t he Cou rt o

f Cr im ina l A

pp e als seeking permission to appea l. See T.C.A. § 40-30-117( c)( 2003) (e mphasis added) ; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 § 10(b). The a

p p l ication shall be accompanie d by copie s of all t he docum ents filed by both parties in the trial court and the order denying the motion. T. C.A . § 40 -3 0- 11 7(c)(em ph asis a dd e d) ; s ee als o Tenn. S u p

. C t. R. 28 § 10(b). I n the pre sent ca se, Petitioner has failed to comply with the statut ory re qu ir e me nts fo r s e e kin g app e llate re vie w. Al tho ug h ti me ly fi led, P eti tione r f

ile d h is

app lic a tio n in the wr on g c ou rt a ndPe tit ion e r f

a ile d to a tta c h to his no tic e of app e a l th e do c ume nts filed by the parties in the t rial court and the order of t he trial court deny ing the motion. Moreover,

no thi ng in the no tic e of app e a l do c ume nt re fl e c ts the natur e of the g ro un ds that he a lle g e d i n his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition. Relevant information, including the c halleng ed orde r, is before this Court onl y

beca use a r ecor d was transmitted as if this we re an appea l a s of rig ht rather than an a pplication for discretionary revie w. Nothing in the notice of a ppeal doc ument indicates that it could be ef

fec tively treated as an application for permission to appeal. Se e Gr ah am v . S tate , 90 S.W .3d 687, 691 (Tenn. 2002)

.

I n o rd e r t o o btain a

pp e llate re vie w o f the tr ia l c ou rt ’s or de r, a pe tit ion e r mus t c omp ly

wi th the statutory

require ments contained in Sec tion 40-30-117(c ). See John Harold W illiams, Jr. v. Sta te , N o

. W 1 9 99 -0 17 31 -C CA -R 3- PC; W ill iam Le e Dr um ba rg e r v . S tat e , No. M1999-01444-CCAR3- PC ( Te nn . Crim. A p p

. at N a sh vil le , D e c . 7 , 1 99 9) ; Luc y Kill e bre w v . S tat e , N o. 03 C01 -9 80 9- CR00320 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxvi lle, Oct. 5, 1999), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. A pr. 24, 2000). The failure of a petiti oner to comply with statutory require ments g overning revie w of a denial of a motion to reope n deprive s this C ourt of jurisdiction to enterta in such matter. J oh n H arold W ill iam s, J r. v . S tat e , No. W1999-01731-CCA-R3-PC. Finally , neither the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t3

nor the Ru l es o f t he Supreme Court permit this C ourt to suspend the statutory require ments. Id. Acc ording ly , this Court i s without jurisdi ction to entertain this matter. Notwithstanding , even ha d the app lic a tio n ve ste d this Cou rt wi th j urisd ic tio n, we a g re e wi th the tr ia l c ou rt that th e mot ionfails to assert a claim upon which a

motion to reopen a pe tition for post-c onviction relief may be g rante d.

The Petitioner’s due proce ss arg ument simil arly fails to g ain this Court’s review. Whil e due proce ss may demand that strict application of proce dural require ments be re laxed, due proce ss does not r e q u ir e th a t th e c o u r ts a lt e r th e s u b je c t matt e r o f c o ll a te r a l p r o c e e d in g s

. T h e g r o unds for reope ning a

post-conviction petition are very n ar ro w: (1) a new c onstitut ional rig ht that is given retroa ctive application; (2) new sc ient i fi c ev i d ence of ac tual innocenc e; or (3) evidenc e of an improperly

enhanc ed sente nce. See T.C.A. § 40-30-117( a)( 1-3). The Pe t i t i o n er ’s claims of counsel’s ine ffe ctiveness f ail to satisfy any

of these thr ee c ircumscribed g rounds. Due pr ocess doe s not cre ate a

fourth categ ory

under w hich the Petitioner may reope n his petition for post-conviction relief . Moreove r, althoug h other sources of collater al review addr essing claims of new ly discovere d

e vid e nc e ma y be a va ila

ble fo r Pet iti on e r, thi s Co urt may no t su a s po nte c on ve rt the pr oc e e din g to one amenable to the particular c laim raised by Petitioner. Se e Ha rri s v . S tat e , 102 S.W .3d 587, 593 (Tenn. 2003) . Acc ording ly
, Pe ti tione r’s c laims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of c ounsel, and in particular, his c la ims re la t e d t o n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e , f

a i l t o p r e s e n ta

c l a i mu n d e r

w h i c h a m o t i o n to reope n may

be g rante d.

The Petitioner’s f

ailure to prope rly perf

ect an application for permission to appea l divested this Court of j urisdiction to consider the appea l. Accor dingly , it is ordered that the State’s motion is gr anted. The above- captioned matter is dismiss ed.

___________________________________ 

### DAVID G. H AYES, JUDGE