State v. Evans
108 S.W.3d 231 · Tennessee Supreme Court · 2003
Facts
Michael D. Evans was convicted in Roane County Criminal Court in 1996 on four counts of rape of a child and three counts of statutory rape, receiving an effective sentence of fifteen years. In his direct appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed one child rape conviction but affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences. Evans's counsel failed to file a Rule 11 application for permission to appeal from this decision, and mandate issued on February 20, 1998. On October 29, 1998, Evans filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging his attorney's ineffective performance unilaterally deprived him of the right to seek second-tier review. The victims, ages twelve and fourteen, testified to the defendant's unlawful sexual penetration, and the defendant confessed to the crimes.
Procedural history
Michael D. Evans was convicted in the Roane County Criminal Court in 1996. The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed one child rape conviction but affirmed the remaining convictions and sentences. Evans's counsel failed to file a Rule 11 application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. Evans then filed a petition for post-conviction relief in the Roane County Criminal Court, which granted him a delayed appeal in 2002. Evans subsequently filed an application for permission to appeal in the Supreme Court, which granted the application.
Issue
The primary legal question is to clarify the procedure that governs when a trial court or the Court of Criminal Appeals determines that a criminal defendant was unilaterally deprived of the right to seek second-tier review pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 11. Specifically, whether Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, section (9)(D) has superseded the procedural framework of State v. Pinkston.
Holding
The court held that Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, section (9)(D) has superseded the procedural framework of State v. Pinkston. The trial court's order granting a delayed appeal was substantially compliant, and the defendant's delayed application for permission to appeal was properly filed. The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, concluding that none of the assigned errors warranted reversal.
Rule
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, section (9)(D) provides the procedure for implementing the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedures Act. This rule grants trial courts or the Court of Criminal Appeals the authority to determine if a petitioner was deprived of the right to request an appeal under Rule 11. If such a determination is made, the petitioner has sixty days from the entry of the court's order granting the delayed appeal to seek Rule 11 review. The trial court or Court of Criminal Appeals shall stay post-conviction proceedings pending the final disposition of the delayed appeal. This rule supersedes the Pinkston framework, which required the trial court to deny the claim and the petitioner to appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals to vacate and reinstate its judgment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.