### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE Se pte m be r 28, 200 5 S es sio n

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . LIS A DURBIN HO WARD

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Bradley County

No. M- 03-669 Car roll L. Ross, Jud ge

No. E2005-00112-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Novem ber 4, 2005

A B radle y

CountyCriminal Court juryconvicted the appellant, L isa Durbin Howar d, of first deg ree pr e me dit a te d mu rd e r, a nd the tr ia l cou rt se nte nc e d he r to lif e imp ri so nme nt. Th e app e lla nt a pp e a ls her c onviction, claiming (1) that the trial court’s comments to the jury during delibera tions amounted
to a n impr op e r “ dy na mit e ” or Al le n c ha

rg e ; ( 2) that th e tr ial cou rt e rr e d b y e xclu din g a

de fe ns e expert’s testimony ; (3) that the State impermissiblyexcluded the only Afric an-A merica n from the jury po ol; (4 ) that jur or mis c on du c t de nie d he r the ri g ht t o a fa ir a nd imp art ia l ju ry ; ( 5) that th e Sta te fa ile d to pr e se rv e the a ud iot ape d r e c or din g of the pr e lim ina

ry he ari ng a s r e qu ir e d b y

Te nn e sse e Rul e of Cr imi na l Proc e du re 5. 1( a ); a nd (6 ) tha t the tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y no t c on du c tin g a

pr op e r j ur y

po ll. We conclude tha t the appellant ha s waived the se issues beca use she failed to f

ile a timely

motion for

ne w t ri a l. M or e ov e r, we dis c e rn no pla in e rr or a nd a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.

N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH , and A L AN E. G L EN N , J J ., joined.

Robin Rubi n Flore s, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , for the a ppellant, L isa Durbin Howa rd.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Da vidE. Coe ne n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Jer ry N. Es te s, Di str ic t A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; an d J oh n H. B le ds oe , A ssi sta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

I. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound

This case arose from the a ppellant’s s h o o t ing he r husband, B rian How ard. The testimony at tri al revealed tha t on the night of Fe bruary 15, 2002, J oey

Stevenson, the appe llant’s former boy friend, c alled 911 to re port a shooting at 701 L owery Street. W h en the police a rrived, two

women we re standing outside a mobile home and w ere hy sterica l. One of the women, who wa s the-2-

appellant, told an of

fice r, “I shot him.” Whil e a police officer talked to the women, a sec ond office r

we nt ins ide the mob ile ho me a nd dis c ov e re d the vic tim ly ing on the fl oo r in the ma st er be dro om. He ha d been shot twice and wa s dead. The police found a Be retta pistol and a she ll casing on the bed and a shell casing underne ath the bed. T he police a lso found a holstere d nine m illim eter pistol lay ing on a

dresse r ne ar t h e foot of the bed. The police tra nsported the a ppellant to the police de pa rt me nt, wh e re sh e g a ve a

sta te me nt i n w hic h s he a dmi tte d s ho oti ng the vic tim

.

Severa l witnesses testified at trial about the victim’s being jealous of the a ppellant’s ong oing friendship with Joey Stevenson. Wit nesses for the defe nse also testified about the v i ct i m ’s b eing violent toward the appellant, moving out of their home r epeatedly , and taking Prozac for de pression. J oey Stevenson testified that about 7:30 p.m. on the nig ht of the shooting, he was a t work and the

app e lla nt t e le ph on e d h im f ro m th e ho sp ita l, w he re sh e wa s v isi tin g he r f a the r. Th e app e lla nt t old Stevenson that the vi ctim was not showing her any compassion. S tevenson told the appe llant that he wa s b u s y an d wo uld have to talk to her later. A bout 9:30 p.m., the appellant telephone d Stevenson ag ain and told him that she had shot the victim. The appe llant was fr antic, and Steve nson hung up the telephone and ca lled 911.

The a ppellant testified that on the day of the shooting , she had be en visiting he r fa ther, who

was ve ry sick and in the hos pital. That evening
, the vi ctim came to the hos pital and beg an har assing the appe llant. The appe llant went outside and sat in her car , but the v i ct i m followed he r into the parking lot and pounded on her car window. The a

ppellant drove hom e, an d t h e victim arrived sometime later . They

beg an “f ussing,” and the a

ppellant sug g ested that the vic tim leave. The appellant wa lked to her pa rents’ house near

by and retrieved the victim’s nine m illim eter Be retta tha t she had le ft there . When she returned to the m obile home, t he victim was in the bedroom and sitting

ne ar the fo ot o f the be d. Th e app e lla nt s a t ne ar the he a d of the be d, a nd thevic tim g lare d o ve r h is shoulder at the a

ppellant and told her

that “i f I l ea v e thi s house ag ain, I ’m not g oing to lea ve y ou alive.” T he victim started to g et up, and the a ppellant shot him with the Bere tta once in the uppe r back a nd once in the c hest. The a ppellant claimed that the vi ctim had been reaching for the g un on the dr e sse r, that sh e sh ot the vic tim in s e lf -d e fe ns e , a nd that sh e sh ot him the se c on d tim e be c a us e he “ke pt coming.” The jury convicted the appellant of first deg ree preme ditated murder , and the tria l
court sente nced he r to life.

II. Ana lys is

On appe al, the appe llant claims (1) that the tria l court’s c o mments to the jury during delibera tions amounted to an improper “ dy namite” or Allen cha

rg e; (2) that the trial court erre d by excluding a defe nse ex pert’s testimony ; (3) that the State imper missibl y excluded the only

Afric anAmeric an fr om the jury

pool; (4) that juror misconduc t denied her the rig ht to a fair and impartial jury ; (5) th a t th e St a te f

a il e d to p r e s e r v e th e a u d io ta p e d r e c o r d in g o f th e p r e li mi n ar y h e ar in g as require d by

Tennes see Rule of

Criminal Procedure 5.1(a) ; and (6) tha t the trial court e rre d by not conducting a prope r jury

poll. The State claims that the appellant has waived the issues bec ause she failed to file a

timely motion for new tria l. We ag ree with the State.-3-

A motion for new trial must be made in writing or re duced to writing within thirty day s of
t h e “ d a t e t h e o r d e r

o f s e n t e n c e i s e n t e r e d

. ” T e n n

. R

. C r i m

. P

. 3 3 ( b )

. T h i s p r o v i s i o n i s m a n d a t o r y, and the time for

the filing cannot be extended. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 45( b); State v. Martin, 940 S.W.2d 567, 569 (Tenn. 1997) . Be cause a trial c ourt does not have jurisdiction to hear a nd deter mine the merits of an untimely

motion for new tria l, the trial court’ s “er roneous consideration [and] ruling on a motion for new trial not timelyfiled . . . does not validate the motion.” Martin, 940 S.W.2d at 569 (citing State v. Dodson, 780 S.W .2d 778, 780 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1989) ). An untimely motion for

ne w tr ia l “ no t on ly re su lts in the app e lla nt los ing the ri g ht to ha ve a he ari ng on the mot ion
, bu t it a lso deprive s the appe llant of t he opportunit y to arg ue on appea l any issues that were or should have be en prese nted in the motion for new tria l.” I d. Moreove r, the untimely filing of a motion for new trial does not toll the tim e for filing a notice of appea l. There fore
, an untimely motion for new tria l often wi ll a lso re su lt in a n un tim e ly no tic e of app e a l. Sta te v. Da vis , 7 48 S.W. 2d 20 6, 20 7 ( Te nn . Cr im. App. 1987).

I n this case, the tr ial court e ntere d the judg ment of convic tion on Febr uary 13, 2004. The appellant did not file a

motion for new tria l until J une 1 8
, 2 004, more than thirty day s after
sentenc ing. Thus, her motion for ne w trial wa s untimely , and she ha s waived he r cla ims. Moreover, we disce rn no plain err or. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52( b). We note that despite an untimely motion for ne w trial, this c ourt may revie w sufficie ncy of the evidenc e and sentenc ing. State v. Boxley , 76 S.W

. 3 d 3 8 1 (T enn. Crim. App. 2001). How ever , the appe llant did not raise those issues in her appellate brief.

III. Conclusi on

B a se d u po n th e re c or d a nd the pa rt ie s’ br ie fs , w e a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.

___________________________________ NORMA McGEE OGLE, J UDGE