Case Name: George Arlen MASSEY v. STATE of Tennessee
Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1979-09-28
Citations: 592 S.W.2d 333
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Arlen MASSEY v. STATE of Tennessee.
Judges: TATUM, J., concurs with opinion.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 592
Pages: 333–339

Head Matter:
George Arlen MASSEY v. STATE of Tennessee.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, At Knoxville.
Sept. 28, 1979.
Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court Nov. 13, 1979.
Aubrey C. Jenkins, James S. MacDonald, Charles C. Burks, Jr., Law Offices, Jenkins & Jenkins, Knoxville, for appellant.
William M. Leech, Jr., Atty. Gen., William P. Sizer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, Ronald A. Webster, Dist. Atty. Gen., Randall E. Nichols, Kim Tollison, Asst. Dist. Attys. Gen., Knoxville, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
SCOTT, Judge.
As the result of a three day trial the jury returned a verdict on October 4, 1978, finding the appellant guilty of murder in the second degree and fixing his punishment at forty years in the state penitentiary. Although the bill of exceptions is silent concerning any oral motion for a new trial, the minutes of the Court for October 4, 1978 recite, "Motion for a New Trial entered and 30 days allowed within which to file same, to be argued on November 17, 1978."
The appellant's written motion for a new trial was filed November 13, 1978, and on the following day the State filed a motion to strike that motion pursuant to Rule 33(b), Tenn.R.Crim.P. The motion for a new trial was subsequently heard and overruled. In its supplemental brief, the State of Tennessee persists in the position that the motion is late under this Rule.
In cases tried to a jury, . a motion for a new trial overruled by the trial judge is a prerequisite to appellate review . . Whisnant v. State, 532 S.W.2d 572, 574 (Tenn.Cr.App.1975), Rule 14(5) Tn. Sup.Ct. Rules, adopted as a rule of this Court July 6, 1967.
Rule 33(b), Tenn.R.Crim.P., provides that, "(a) motion for a new trial shall be made in writing, or if made orally in open court shall be reduced to writing, within thirty days after verdict." (emphasis added) It is important to note that the motion must be filed within thirty days after verdict, without regard to when judgment is entered on the verdict. Committee Comments to Rule 33, Tenn.R.Crim.P. Vol. 5A, TCA, 1978 Cum.Supp., p. 118. These so-called new rules govern all criminal proceedings commenced ninety days subsequent to their approval by the General Assembly and the Governor, and as far as just and practicable, all proceedings then pending, Rule 59, Tenn.R.Crim.P. House Joint Resolution No. 135 approving the rules was adopted by both houses of the General Assembly on March 27, 1978, and approved by Honorable Ray Blanton, Governor, on April 14, 1978. Public Acts of 1978, Volume II, pgs. 1691-1692. They became effective on July 13, 1978.
Under prior law, a motion for a new trial could only be applied for within thirty days from the decree, verdict or judgment sought to be affected, TCA, § 40-2603. This section entered our code via Ch. 332, § 1, Public Acts 1973. However, the thirty days rule traces its roots to Code 1932,1950 Supp., § 8980. Interpreting TCA, § 40-2603, this Court has held that the judgment of conviction becomes final thirty days after its entry, in the absence of a pending motion for a new trial or other appropriate motion. State v. Bouchard, 563 S.W.2d 561, 563 (Tenn.Cr.App.1977).
In Gray, et a 1. v. State, an unpublished opinion of this Court, filed at Jackson, June 14, 1979, interpreting TCA, § 40-2603, and Rule 37(d), Tenn.R.Crim.P., this Court held that the motion of the State to dismiss the appellant's appeal must be granted, because the motion for a new trial was not timely filed.
Earlier, it was held that, "(the Supreme) Court, as well as other courts of lower jurisdiction, lose (sic) control or jurisdiction over its final judgments . . . when there has been an expiration of thirty days." Hethcoat v. State, 213 Tenn. 563, 376 S.W.2d 478, 479 (1964).
It is readily apparent that the thirty days rule for new trial motions is firmly implanted in the criminal jurisprudence of our State. The only innovation of Rule 33(b) is the explicit statement as to when one begins the computation of time.
Rule 33, Tenn.R.Crim.P. is patterned after Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The time requirement for filing a motion for a new trial under the Federal Rule has been held to be mandatory and jurisdictional. Hence, the District Court in U. S. v. Weiss, 168 F.Supp. 728, 729-730 (W.D.Pa.1958) refused to hear a late-filed motion.
We hold that the thirty days time requirement of Rule 33(b), Tenn.R.Crim.P., is mandatory and jurisdictional. It is com mon knowledge that, under the Gregorian calendar, November 13,1978 was more than thirty days after October 4, 1978. The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1978, p. 786. The judgment was already final when the motion for a new trial was filed. The trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the motion and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
TATUM, J., concurs with opinion.