Opinion

Juan A. Hill v. Randy Lee, Warden

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
Filed
Jul 18, 2018
Status
Published
On the bench
Judge John Everette Williams
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 4.8%

The opinion

07/18/2018

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2018

JUAN A. HILL v. RANDY LEE, WARDEN

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Johnson County

No. CC-17-CR-153 Stacy L. Street, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2018-00749-CCA-R3-HC

___________________________________

The Petitioner, Juan A. Hill, appeals the habeas corpus court’s dismissal of his petition

for writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that the Petitioner’s notice of appeal was

untimely filed, and the interest of justice does not support waiver of the timely filing

requirement. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CAMILLE R.

MCMULLEN and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

Juan A. Hill, Mountain City, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ronald L. Coleman, Assistant

Attorney General; and Ken C. Baldwin, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State

of Tennessee.

OPINION

In 1997, the Petitioner was convicted of rape of a child and was sentenced to

thirty-five years to be served consecutively to his sentence for a prior conviction. This

court affirmed the Petitioner’s conviction and sentence on direct appeal. See State v.

Juan Alfonso Hill, No. 03C01-9710-CR-00441, 1999 WL 222370, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.

App. Apr. 8, 1999), perm app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 20, 1999). The Petitioner

subsequently sought post-conviction relief, which the post-conviction court denied. This

court affirmed the denial of relief on appeal. See Juan Alfonzo Hill v. State, No. E2004-

02915-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 2276422, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 19, 2005).

In 2011, the Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he

alleged that his judgment of conviction was based on a defective indictment and failed to

reflect pretrial jail credits. See Juan A. Hill v. David Sexton, Warden, No. E2012-02077-

CCA-R3-HC, 2013 WL 357565, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 30, 2013). The habeas

corpus court dismissed the petition, and this court affirmed the dismissal on appeal,

concluding that the Petitioner’s claim of a defective indictment was without merit and

that the Petitioner failed to attach the proper documentation to support his claim of

entitlement to pretrial jail credits. Id. at *3.

In 2013, the Petitioner filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he

again claimed entitlement to pretrial jail credits. See Juan A. Hill v. David Sexton,

Warden, No. E2013-01579-CCA-R3-HC, 2014 WL 689690, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App.

Feb. 21, 2014). The habeas corpus dismissed the petition, and this court affirmed the

dismissal on appeal, concluding that the Petitioner again failed to attach the proper

documentation to support his claim. Id. at *2-3.

On November 21, 2017, the Petitioner filed a third petition for writ of habeas

corpus in which he claimed entitlement to pretrial jail credits. The State filed a motion to

dismiss, contending that the failure to award pretrial jail credits does not render a

sentence illegal. On March 14, 2018, the habeas corpus court entered an order granting

the State’s motion and dismissing the Petitioner’s petition. On April 12, the Petitioner

filed a “Motion to Alter or Amend.” On April 13, the habeas corpus court entered an

order denying the Petitioner’s motion. On April 24, the Petitioner filed a notice of

appeal.

On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the habeas corpus court erred in dismissing

his petition. The State responds that the appeal should be dismissed because the

Petitioner failed to file a timely notice of appeal.

The Petitioner had thirty days after the date of entry of the habeas corpus court’s

judgment in which to file a notice of appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). While the Petitioner

filed a motion to alter or amend, such a motion only tolls a civil judgment and does not

toll the time for filing a notice of appeal of a habeas corpus court’s denial of habeas

corpus relief. See Shadeed Rasta v. Michael Donahue, Warden, No. W2013-02100-

CCA-R3-HC, 2014 WL 1410303, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 9, 2014) (citing Tenn. R.

App. P. 3(b), 4(b)(4)). The habeas corpus court filed its order dismissing the Petitioner’s

petition on March 14, 2018, and the Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal until April

24. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s notice of appeal was untimely.

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) allows for this court to waive the

timely filing requirement “in the interest of justice.” This court considers “the nature of

-2-

the issues for review, the reasons for the delay in seeking relief, and other relevant

factors” in determining whether waiver is appropriate. Michelle Pierre Hill v. State, No.

01C01-9506-CC-00175, 1996 WL 63950, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 13, 1996). The

Petitioner has the burden of establishing that waiver is appropriate. State v. Kevin

Montrell Thompson, No. E2016-01565-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 262701, at *2 (Tenn.

Crim. App. Jan. 20, 2017), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 12,. 2017). The Petitioner did

not request that this court waive the filing deadline. Furthermore, while the Petitioner

maintains on appeal that his judgment is void because it does not reflect any pretrial jail

credits, a “trial court’s failure to award pretrial jail credits does not render the sentence

illegal.” State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 213 (Tenn. 2015). The Petitioner does not

otherwise claim that his sentence is expired, and a trial court’s failure to award pretrial

jail credits is “insufficient to establish a colorable claim for habeas corpus … relief.”

Cory O’Brien Johnson v. State, No. W2016-00087-CCA-R3-HC, 2016 WL 4545876, at

*2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 30, 2016) (citing Brown, 479 S.W.3d at 213), perm. app.

denied (Tenn. Dec. 15, 2016).

In light of the issues on appeal and the Petitioner’s failure to present any basis

upon which this court may conclude that the “interest of justice” merits a waiver, we

decline to waive the late filing of the Petitioner’s notice of appeal. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal.

__________________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, PRESIDING JUDGE

-3-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.