### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary 25, 200 5
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . DOYLE ARNEL W HI TLO CK
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Washington Cou nty Nos. 28977, 29211 and 29345 Rob ert E. Cup p, Jud ge

No. E2004-01852-CC A-R3- CD - F iled March 21, 2005

The de fenda nt, Doy le Arne l Whi tlock, appea ls from ac tion s of the Washing ton CountyCriminal Court in the afte rmath of his multipl e, guilty -plea ded convictions, the denial of his motion to reduce his se nte nc e s, a ndhis fi lin g of a do c ume nt t itl e d “ Ap pe a l of C on vic tio n, ” wh ic h d e sp ite the tit le raised issues of

gu i l t y p l ea validity

and inef fec tive assistance of counse l. Upon our re view, we dis mis s th e app e a l in pa

rt a ndre ma ndfo r f

urthe r p ro c e e din g s in thetr ia l c ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt is Affi rm ed in Par t;

Appeal is Dismissed in Par t.

J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., d el i v ered the opinion of the cour t, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.
Doy le Arne l Whi tlock, Pro Se (on appe al); and Scott Pratt, J ohnso n City , Tenne ssee ( at trial), f or the Ap pe lla nt.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Pr e sto n Shi pp , As sis ta nt At torne y Ge ne ra l; Joe C. Crumley , J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and Steve Finney , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

Pursuant to his guilty

pleas, t h e d ef

endant was convicte d on May 18, 2004, of the fo llo wi ng of

fe ns e s a ndre c e ive d th e fo llo wi ng se nte nc e s:

Fe lony esca pe Class E fe lony 6 y ear s, persistent offe nder E v a d i n g arr e s tC l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r 1 1 m o n t h s , 2 9 d a ys T h e f t C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r 1 1 m o n t h s , 2 9 d a ys Fa lse reporting Class D fe lony 12 y ear s, persistent offe nder Auto burg lary Class E felony 6 y ear s, persistent offe nder T h e f t C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r 1 1 m o n t h s , 2 9 d a ys-2- Auto burg lary Class E felony 6 y ear s, persistent offe nder T h e f t C l a s s A m i s d e m e a n o r 1 1 m o n t h s , 2 9 d a ys Ev a din g arr e st C la ss Amis de me a no r 1 1 mo nth s, 29 da y s.
The c ombination of concur rent a nd consec utive sentenc es re sulted in an eff ective se ntence of 12 y ear s. On May

26, 2004, citing the defe ndant’s plea barg ain and his voluntary pleas, the tria l court
e nte re d a n or de r d e ny ing the de fe nd a nt’ s pro s e mot ion s to re du c e his se nte nc e s andto a llo w h im to serve his e ffe ctive sente nce in the Washing ton County J ail. On J une 15, 2004, the de fenda nt filed an “A ppeal of

Conviction,” which cla imed that his pleas wer e unknowing and involuntary and that tr ia l c ou ns e l ha d b e e n ine ff e c tiv e

. I t app e ars , as state d by the state in its br ie f, that th e tr ia l c ou rt did not rule upon these c laims and that the “‘ Appea l of Conviction’ serve d as a notice of appe al.”

The state a

rg ues that the de fenda nt waived a rig htful ap p eal of his convictions and sentenc e. The rec ord does not conta in the defe ndant’s plea ag ree ment or pl ea pe titions . The re cord contains an a cknowledg ment and wa iver of c erta in rights, but this document does not detail the plea te rm s. I t in c lud e s a wa ive r of “ [t]he ri g ht to app e llate re vie w if c on vic te d by tr ia l.” Th e re c or d a lso contains a transcript of the g uilty pleas hearing , which reflec ts the def endant’ s acknow ledg ment that he wa ived hi s ri gh t to appea l following c onvictions based on plea s of g uilty . During the plea colloquy , the trial court also eng ag ed the de fenda nt in the following e x chang e:

Cou rt : I f y ou , a ft e r p le a din g g uil ty , d e c ide to a pp e a l y ou r g uil ty pleas, I ’m g oing to make sure y ou don’t g et any relief from the Court of Appe als. The rights y ou g ive up her e ar e the rights y ou g ive up at the Court of Appe als as long as they ’re g iven up normally . I think
we ’r e m ak i n g s u re t h at t h at ’s h ap p en i n g.

De fe nd a nt: Ye s, sir , I

un de rs ta ndthat.

Further e x chang es betwe en the trial judge and the defe ndant sug g est that, in ref erring to a ny

appea l of the g uil ty ple a s, the tr ia l judg e wa s r e fe rring to a pp e llate re vie w o f the vo lun tari ne ss o f the ple a s, such as mig ht ensue fr om a denial of post-conviction re lief.

Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Ap pe llate Pr oc re du re 3( b) pr ov ide s:

I n criminal ac tions an appea l as of rig ht by a def endant lies fr om any judgme nt of conviction entered by a trial court fr om which an a ppeal lies to the S upreme Court or C ourt of C riminal Appea ls: (1) on a plea of not g uilty ; and (2) on a plea of g uilty or nol o contende re, . . . if the defe ndant see ks revi ew o f the sentenc e and the re w as no plea ag ree ment conce rning the sentenc e, or if the issues prese nted for revie w wer e not wa i v ed as a matter of law by the plea of

g uiltyor nolo c ontender e and if such issues are appar ent from the re cord of the proce eding s alrea dy

had.-3-

Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b).

Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Cr imi na l Pr oc e du re 37 (b ) p ro vid e s: An appe al l ies from any

order or judg ment in a criminal procee ding wher e the law provides for such appe al, and f

rom any j u d gment of conviction:
(1) upon a

plea of not guilty ; or (2) upon a

plea of g uiltyor nolo contende re if:

. . . . (ii) the d ef

endant se eks re view of the sentenc e set a nd there was no plea

ag ree ment under Rule 11( e); or
(iii) the er ror( s) complained of

wer e not waived as a matter of law by the plea of

g uiltyor nolo contende re, or otherwise w aived, a nd if such err ors are appar ent from the re cord of the proc eeding s alrea dy had.
Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b).

Reg ardle ss whether

the defen d an tex p l i ci t l y

wa i v ed h i s ri gh tt o ap p ea l h i s co n v i ct i o ns follow ing his guil ty pleas , we c onclude that he waived this rig ht as a matter of law. See S t ate v. W ilson , 31 S.W .3d 189, 193 (Tenn. 2000) (pursua nt to Te nnessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b), de fe nd a nt’ s “ c la im that his g uil ty ple a wa s n ot kno wi ng ly

a ndvo lun tari ly

e nte re d” is n ot a

pp e a la ble as of rig ht). Any appea l of the convic tions is, the re fo re , d ism iss e d. Es se nti a lly , th e de fe nd a nt mus t prese nt the claim of unknowing or i nvoluntary g uilty pleas via a petiti on for post-c onviction relief. Id. at 194.
The que stion of w aiver of the rig ht to a ppeal the c onvictions aside, whethe r an a ppeal of th e s en t en ces is waived is a more pe rplexing question on the pre sent rec ord. As shown a bove, Rule 37(b) a llows an appe al of the se ntence following a g uilty plea when t he plea ag ree ment does
no t e mbr a c e the se nte nc e s to be imp os e d. Mo re ov e r, thi s c ou rt ha s a llo we d a se nte nc ing app e a l to proce ed when, despite the g uiltyplea a nd a g ener al waive r of the right to appe al, the re cord showe d that the defendant did not ag ree in advanc e to t he sente ncing terms. State v. Carter , 986 S.W .2d 596, 5 9 7 ( T e n n

. Crim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 8 )

. I n th is c a s e , h o w e v e r , u n like in C a r ter , the transc ript of the plea submissi on hearing indicates that the sentences were part of the plea ag ree ment. To the extent that the a c tua l pl e a

te rm s mi g ht h a ve sh ow n o the rw ise , th e de fe nd a nt, a s th e app e lla nt, ha s f a ile d to include the plea

document in the re cord. “ [I ]t is the duty of the defe ndant to pr epar e a re cord w hich convey s a fair, acc urate and complete acc ount of what transpire d in the trial court with respec t to the-4-

issues which form the bases of the appea l.” State v. Coolidge , 9 15 S.W. 2d82 0, 82 6 ( Te nn . Crim. App. 1995), overruled on othe r grounds by State v. Troutman , 979 S.W .2d 271 (Tenn. 1998). I n the absenc e of a

sufficie nt rec ord, this court must presume that the trial court a cted c orre ctly in rec eiving pleas that include d ag ree d sentenc es. See, e .g., id. Thus, we hold that a rightf u l appeal of the
se nte nc e ha s b e e n w a ive d a s a ma tte r of la w. An y app e a l of the se nte nc ing de te rm inatio ns sh ou ld be dismissed.
Having disposed of the possibiliti es that the de fendant may have eff ectively appea led his convictions or sentenc es, we must now consider whether he has a ppeale d from the tria l court’s May 26, 2004 order

denying se ntence reduc tions or service of the sente nces in the c ounty jail.

Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Cr imi na l Pr oc e du re 35 (b ) p ro vid e s:
Th e tr ia l c ou rt ma y

re du c e a se nte nc e up on app lic a tio n f ile d w ith in 12 0 d a y s a ft e r the da te the se nte nc e is i mpo se d o r p ro batio n is revoke d. No extensions shall be allowed on the time limit ation. No other a ctions shall toll the running of this time limit ation. A motion for r eduction of se ntence u n d er t his rule may be denie d by

the trial judge without a h ea ri n g. If the application is denied, the defe ndant

ma y ap pe al but the defe ndant shall not be entitl ed to re lease on bond
un le ss the de fe nd a nt i s a lr e a dy under bo nd . I f the se nte nc e is modified, the state may

app ea l as otherwise pr ovided by law. A modificatio n can only

be as to a ny

sentenc e the c ourt could have orig inally imposed.

Tenn. R. Crim

. P

. 3 5 (b) (emphasis adde d). Thus, the de fenda nt may appea l from the denia l of sentenc e re duction, but on appea l, the defe ndant has a ddresse d neither this action of the trial court nor the de nial of loca l service of the sente nce. R. Te nn. Ct. Crim . App

. 1 0 (b ). These issues are waived, a nd the trial court’s order of May 26, 2004, is affirme d.

Fina ll y , w e a d d r e s s w h e th e r th e tria l c o u r t s h o u ldh a v e tr e a te d th e “ A p p e a l of Conviction” as a pe tition for post-conviction relief

. As mentioned above, this document claims the ple a s are un kn ow ing a nd inv olu nta ry a nd the re su lt of the ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

c ou ns e l – c la ims that are raised ty

pically in post-conviction proce eding s. See T en n

. C o d e A n n

. § § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 1 t h ro u gh 40 -3 0- 12 2 ( 20 03 ). I n h is b ri e f, the de fe nd a nt c la ims that th e tr ia l co urt err e d in de nying po stconviction re lief without the appointment of counse l and a he aring

.

We point out i nitiallythat the trial court neither de nied re lief nor took any other a ction
on the de fe nd a nt’ s “ Ap pe a l of Con vic tio n” a s a pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f. Th e tr ia l c ou rt , probably throug h the trial court cler k, appar ently

took the defe ndant’s docume nt heading at its word and tre ated the doc ument as a notice of appe al. As such, ther e is no order o f t h e t rial court from which the de fenda nt may rig htfully

appea l. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b) ( “The defe ndant may

. . . appea l as of rig ht from . . . a fi na l ju dg me nt in a . .

. post-conviction proceeding .”) (emphasis adde d).-5-

Thus, as an a

ppeal of an orde r denying a

petiti o n fo r p o s t-conviction re lief, the a ppeal must be dismiss ed.
The que stion remains whether we should view the “Appe al of Convi ction” docume nt itself as a pe tition for post-conviction relief and re mand the ca

use to the trial cou rt for f urther proce eding s on the pending petition. We conclude that judicial economy would better be serve d by so doing. We ha ve held previously in this opi nion that no direct a ppeal of the conviction or se ntence has occ urr ed

. T he convic tion procee ding is, ther efor e, ef fec tively conclude d, pending Tenne ssee Rule of Appellate Procedur e 11 re view. I n our view, the defe ndant’s ca se is ripe for post-conviction revie w. We see no point in requiring the defe ndant to file ane w when his “cur rent” petition may

be attended by

counsel a nd amende d as nee ded. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-107 (2003)

.
Acc ording ly , the case i s rema nded to the trial court, which shall treat the defe ndant’s “Appe al of Conviction” as a petition for post-conviction re lief, appoint counsel in the e vent it finds the de fe nd a nt t o b e ind ig e nt, a ndoth e rw ise pr oc e e d p ur su a nt to the Pos t- Con vic tio n Pr oc e du re Ac t.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE