Donnell Tingle a/k/a Donnell T. Tingle a/k/a Donnell Demetrius Tingle v. State of Mississippi;

• Court: Court of Appeals of Mississippi
• Decided: November 26, 2019
• Docket: NO. 2019-CP-00064-COA
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2019-CP-00064-COA

DONNELL TINGLE A/K/A DONNELL T. APPELLANT TINGLE A/K/A DONNELL DEMETRIUS TINGLE

v.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/2018 TRIAL JUDGE: HON. LESTER F. WILLIAMSON JR. COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DONNELL TINGLE (PRO SE) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: BILLY L. GORE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - POST-CONVICTION RELIEF DISPOSITION: APPEAL DISMISSED - 11/26/2019 MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED: MANDATE ISSUED:

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., GREENLEE AND TINDELL, JJ.

GREENLEE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Donnell Tingle appeals the Lauderdale County Circuit Court’s denial of post-

conviction collateral relief (PCR). Finding that we lack appellate jurisdiction, we dismiss

Tingle’s appeal.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2. In May 2016, Tingle was indicted for “Burglary of a Nondwelling” after he allegedly

broke into a building and stole tires from a Jeep Wrangler. The indictment also charged

Tingle with being a violent habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-

19-83 (Rev. 2015). ¶3. On September 7, 2016, Tingle pled guilty, and the circuit court sentenced him as a

non-violent habitual offender under Mississippi Code Annotated section 99-19-81 (Rev.

2015) to serve seven years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections.

Tingle was also ordered to pay $3,320.50 in restitution, fines, and court costs.1

¶4. On May 9, 2018, Tingle filed a PCR motion in the circuit court. He claimed that his

indictment was not properly read to the grand jury, he should have been indicted for petit

larceny and trespassing, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.2

¶5. While Tingle’s first PCR motion was pending, Tingle filed a second PCR motion on

September 25, 2018. In that motion, he claimed that his indictment was void, there was no

factual basis for his guilty plea, and he received ineffective assistance of counsel.3 Under the

“Ineffective Assistance of Counsel” heading, Tingle asserted among other things that his

attorney threatened “a possible life sentence to persuade [him] to accept the [guilty] plea.”

¶6. On October 8, 2018, the circuit court denied post-conviction relief. Subsequently,

Tingle filed a motion to correct his second PCR motion, which the court denied on

November 6, 2018. The court noted, “[Tingle] believes the [c]ourt failed to notify him of

some deficiency with his [m]otion, causing it to be dismissed. [Tingle] is incorrect. The

1 As part of the plea agreement, the court consented to a nolle prosequi for a charge of receiving stolen property. 2 Tingle argued that his attorney was ineffective because he did not help him, withheld discovery, “did not . . . assert [his] constitutional rights,” allowed the proceeding to take place knowing that his fundamental constitutional rights had been violated, and forced him into pleading guilty by threatening him with a life sentence. 3 Tingle argued that his attorney was ineffective for failing to “demur the void indictment” and failing to object to the lack of a factual basis.

2 [p]etition was [denied] because [Tingle] failed to meet his burden of proof.” Tingle also

filed a motion to amend his filings on November 20, 2018, to correct the county listed on two

documents.

¶7. On December 6, 2018, Tingle appealed, claiming (1) the indictment failed to charge

him with the essential elements of the crime; (2) he should have been indicted for

trespassing; (3) his guilty plea was involuntary; and (4) he received ineffective assistance of

counsel.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶8. “When reviewing a [circuit] court’s denial or dismissal of a PCR motion, we will only

disturb the [circuit] court’s decision if it is clearly erroneous; however, we review the

[circuit] court’s legal conclusions under a de novo standard of review.” Williams v. State,

228 So. 3d 844, 846 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Thinnes v. State, 196 So. 3d 204,

207-08 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016)).

DISCUSSION

¶9. “This Court must have jurisdiction to consider this appeal.” Cane v. State, 206 So.

3d 1268, 1271 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Vance v. State, 941 So. 2d 225, 227 (¶5)

(Miss. Ct. App. 2006)). Although “the State has not challenged appellate jurisdiction, we

must determine whether jurisdiction exists.” Hunt v. State, 11 So. 3d 764, 766 (¶5) (Miss.

Ct. App. 2009). Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) provides that a notice of

appeal shall be filed within thirty days “after the date of entry of the judgment or order

appealed from.” And Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 2(a)(1) states that “[a]n

3 appeal shall be dismissed if the notice of appeal was not timely filed . . . .”

¶10. Here, the circuit court denied Tingle’s PCR motions on October 8, 2018. According

to Rule 4(a), Tingle had until November 7, 2018, to file his notice of appeal. However,

Tingle’s notice of appeal was stamped “filed” on December 6, 2018.4

¶11. Because Tingle’s motion was pro se and he was incarcerated when he mailed the

notice of appeal, the prison mailbox rule applies. Sykes v. State, 757 So. 2d 997, 1000-01

(¶14) (Miss. 2000). The prison mailbox rule states that a prisoner’s motion is delivered for

filing on the date that the prisoner submitted the papers to prison authorities for mailing. Id.

¶12. In his motion to correct his second PCR motion, Tingle stated that he received the

order denying post-conviction relief “[o]n or about the 8th day of October 2018.” Although

his notice of appeal is not dated, the certificate of service is dated November 29, 2018. Even

if Tingle had submitted his notice of appeal to prison authorities on November 29, 2018, it

was still approximately three weeks late.

¶13. This Court “‘may suspend the requirements of the appellate rules’—specifically, Rule

4(a)—to allow an out-of-time appeal in post-conviction-relief proceedings where doing so

would be ‘in the interest of justice.’” Cane, 206 So. 3d at 1273 (¶13) (quoting Vance, 941 So.

2d at 227 (¶6)). However, we decline to find that it is “in the interest of justice” to suspend

the thirty-day requirement in this case. This is particularly true here, where Tingle raises the

4 Mississippi Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(e) provides that “[i]f a defendant makes a timely motion (1) for judgment of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict of the jury, or (2) for a new trial under MRCrP 25.1, the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order denying such motion.” After the court entered its order denying post-conviction relief, Tingle filed a motion to correct his PCR motion and a motion to amend. However, Rule 4(e) does not contemplate either of these motions.

4 specifics of his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for the first time on appeal and where

his remaining claims that the indictment failed to charge him with the essential elements of

the crime, that he should have been indicted for trespassing, and that his guilty plea was

involuntary, upon review, appear meritless. Therefore, we dismiss Tingle’s appeal as

untimely.

¶14. APPEAL DISMISSED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON, P.J., WESTBROOKS, TINDELL, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR. J. WILSON, P.J., CONCURS IN PART AND IN THE RESULT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. McDONALD AND LAWRENCE, JJ., DISSENT WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION.