Quinton A. Cage v. State of Tennessee ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                           07/06/2020
    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE
    Assigned on Briefs June 9, 2020
    QUINTON A. CAGE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County
    No. 19C1642 Amanda Jane McClendon, Judge
    ___________________________________
    No. M2019-01888-CCA-R3-HC
    ___________________________________
    Petitioner, Quinton A. Cage, appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief in
    which he argues that he was deprived of a fair trial. Because we determine that Petitioner
    has failed to file a timely notice of appeal or provide a reason as to why the timely filing
    of the notice of appeal should be waived, the appeal is dismissed.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
    TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.
    WOODALL and ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY. JR., JJ., joined.
    Quinton A. Cage, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
    Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; and Clark B. Thornton, Senior
    Assistant Attorney General; for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
    OPINION
    Factual Background
    Over 25 years ago, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated rape, especially
    aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and reckless endangerment with a deadly
    weapon by a Montgomery County jury. Petitioner was sentenced to 55 years in prison.
    On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court. State v. Quinton
    Cage, No. 01C01-9605-CC-00179, 
    1999 WL 30595
    , at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 26,
    1999), perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 12, 1999). Petitioner filed a petition for post-
    conviction relief in 2000 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Quinton A.
    Cage, No. M2000-01989-CCA-R3-PC, 
    2001 WL 881357
    , at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug.
    7, 2001), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 10, 2001). The post-conviction court denied
    relief and this Court affirmed the judgment. 
    Id.
     Petitioner has since filed for habeas
    relief multiple times. See Quinton Cage v. State, No. M2018-00568-CCA-R3-HC, 
    2018 WL 4523209
    , at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 21, 2018) (“Cage III”), perm. app. denied
    (Tenn. Dec. 7, 2018); Quinton Albert Cage v. David Sexton, Warden, No. E2011-01609-
    CCA-R3-HC, 
    2012 WL 2764998
    , at *2-4 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 10, 2012) (“Cage II”),
    perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 19, 2012); Quinton Cage v. Howard Carlton, Warden, No.
    E2008-00357-CCA-R3-HC, 
    2008 WL 3245567
    , at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 8, 2008)
    (“Cage I”), no perm. app. filed.
    On July 12, 2019, Petitioner filed another habeas petition claiming he was denied
    a fair trial because he was not allowed to produce certain evidentiary items and other due
    process claims. On September 10, 2019, the Second Circuit Court for Davidson County,
    dismissed the petition without a hearing.
    Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on October 18, 2019.
    Analysis
    On appeal, Petitioner challenges the habeas court’s denial of relief. Specifically,
    Petitioner challenges the trial court’s refusal to grant relief on the basis that Petitioner
    was denied the ability to present evidence and was subject to governmental misconduct
    which resulted in an unfair trial. The State argues the appeal should be dismissed
    because the notice of appeal is untimely. Specifically, the State argues that Petitioner has
    not met his burden of showing compliance with the so-called “prison mailbox rule.” We
    agree with the State.
    Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), requires a notice of appeal must be
    filed in the appellate court “within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment
    appealed from.” In the case of a pro se appellant who is incarcerated, “filing shall be
    timely if the papers were delivered to the appropriate individual at the correctional
    facility within the time fixed for filing.” Tenn. R. App. P. 20(g). There is nothing in the
    record to show the notice of appeal was delivered in compliance with Rule 20(g).
    However, Rule 4(a) also states that “in all criminal cases the ‘notice of appeal’ document
    is not jurisdictional and the filing of such document may be waived in the interest of
    justice.” A petitioner bears the responsibility to properly perfect his appeal or to
    demonstrate that the “interests of justice” merit waiver of an untimely filed notice of
    appeal. State v. Carl T. Jones, No. M2011-00878-CCA-R3-CD, 
    2011 WL 5573579
    , at
    *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2011) (citing Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a)), perm. app. denied
    (Tenn. Apr. 11, 2012); Brooke Whitaker v. Minter, No. W2017-00127-CCA-R3-HC,
    
    2017 WL 4004163
    , at *1–2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 8, 2017).
    -2-
    In this case, the habeas corpus court entered its judgment on September10, 2019.
    Petitioner did not file his notice of appeal until October 18, 2019. The envelope
    delivering the notice to this Court is date stamped October 17, 2019. Thus, Petitioner’s
    notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days from the entry of the judgment of the habeas
    corpus court. Petitioner’s notice of appeal, although only tardy by eight days, was
    nonetheless untimely. He has neither requested a waiver nor has he offered any
    explanation as to why this Court should excuse the untimely filing. Given the
    Petitioner’s multitudinous history of filings in this Court, the Petitioner knows better than
    most, the importance of timely filings. Petitioner has presented no basis upon which this
    Court may find that the “interests of justice” merit a waiver of the untimely filed notice of
    appeal. See State v. Rockwell, 
    280 S.W.3d 212
    , 214 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (“If this
    [C]ourt were to summarily grant a waiver whenever confronted with untimely notices,
    the thirty-day requirement of Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) would be
    rendered a legal fiction.”). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
    ____________________________________
    TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M2019-01888-CCA-R3-HC

Judges: Judge Timothy L. Easter

Filed Date: 7/6/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 7/6/2020