Court Opinion

ID: 9652998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:36:46.583006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:55.733742
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
DWYER, Judge.
The State, aggrieved by our holding that the failure to timely file a motion for new trial pursuant to Tenn.R.Crim.P. 33(b) does not preempt this court of jurisdiction, has respectfully petitioned for a rehearing. Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a). The State correctly points out, as does our opinion, that this holding conflicts with prior opinions of this court, see Massey v. State, 592 S.W.2d 333 (Tenn.Cr.App.1979) and State v. Steve Reece, unpublished opinion, released at Knoxville on October 27, 1980, and a subsequent opinion. See State v. William Henderson and Clifford E. Scott, unpublished opinion, released at Nashville on December 29, 1980.
The State contends our holding that jurisdiction of this court attaches with the timely filing of the notice of appeal, T.R. A.P. 3(e), 4(a), effectively emasculates the requirement of presenting and correcting errors in the trial court. Tenn.R.Crim.P. 33, T.R.A.P. 3(e). We disagree. As noted in our opinion, untimely filing of the motion for new trial waives appellant’s right to present those issues on appeal. T.R.A.P. 3(e). The court, however, has the authority to review the record for apparent errors. Tenn.R.Crim.P. 52(b), T.R.A.P. 13(b), as*614suming a timely notice of appeal has been filed.
With our elaboration on State v. Massey, supra, and State v. Steve Reece, supra, in the initial opinion, the subsequent opinion of State v. William Henderson and Clifford E. Scott, supra, presents no issue that has not already been considered.
The petition to rehear is therefore denied at the cost of the State.
The Appellant has filed a response to the State’s Petition. We direct his attention to T.R.A.P. 39(d).
DAUGHTREY and BYERS, JJ., concur.