Keith Wooten v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: May 28, 1998
• Docket: 01C01-9703-CR-00111
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED APRIL 1998 SESSION May 28, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson KEITH DOUGLAS WOOTEN, * Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. # 01C01-9703-CR-00111

Appellant, * WILSON COUNTY

VS. * Hon. J.O. Bond, Judge

STATE OF TENNESSEE, * (Post-Conviction; Armed Robbery)

Appellee. *

For Appellant: For Appellee:

Peter B. Halverstadt John Knox Walkup Attorney at Law Attorney General and Reporter P.O. Box 158521 Nashville, TN 37215 Elizabeth B. Marney Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

David Durham Assistant District Attorney General 111 Cherry Street Lebanon, TN 37087

OPINION FILED:__________________________

JUDGMENT IN C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9303-CR-00078 VACATED AND REINSTATED

GARY R. WADE, JUDGE ORDER

On March 16, 1989, the petitioner was convicted of two counts of

armed robbery. The trial court imposed concurrent, Range II sentences of thirty-five

years on each count. Because the convictions were pursuant to a plea agreement,

there was no direct appeal.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief

alleging as grounds that his counsel had performed ineffectively. The trial court

denied the claim and, on direct appeal, this court affirmed. Keith Douglas Wooten v.

State, No. 01C01-9303-CR-00078 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, July 22, 1993).

After a review of the record, this court concluded that the petitioner, who was "no

stranger to the criminal justice system," had as his "motivation to plead guilty ... his

fear of consecutive sentences." Id., slip op. at 4. The determination of the court

was that the petitioner "appreciated the fact that his convictions would not increase

the total amount of time he would serve" due to sentences for other crimes. Id.

Counsel for the petitioner withdrew after the entry of the July 22, 1993

opinion. Due to clerical error, the petitioner was notified that the time to file an

application for permission to appeal was September 20, 1993, rather than August

21, 1993. A pro se application for permission to appeal, filed September 17, 1993,

was rejected by our supreme court as untimely.

On October 18, 1994, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District. Our state attorney

general sought a dismissal on the basis that the petitioner had not exhausted his

state remedy. The state contended that the petitioner would be entitled to a delayed

appeal because he had been denied the opportunity of second tier review in the

2 Tennessee Supreme Court. The District Court dismissed the petition on that basis.

On October 11, 1995, the petitioner filed this petition for post-

conviction relief seeking second-tier review of our July 22, 1993, opinion. The trial

court ruled that it was without authority to grant the relief and dismissed the petition.

Additional pleadings seeking relief from the order of dismissal were unsuccessful

and this appeal followed.

The state has conceded in oral argument that an appropriate remedy

is an order vacating and reinstating the July 22, 1993, opinion of this court. It is so

ordered. But see Darrel D. Hayes v. State, No. 01C01-9604-CR-00163 (Tenn. Crim.

App., at Nashville, Sept. 2, 1997). The petitioner may now seek a review under the

terms of Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Costs are adjudged to the state.

________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________ Thomas T. W oodall, Judge

_____________________________ L.T. Lafferty, Special Judge