Jackie F. Curry v. State of Tennessee
E2016-01893-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | May 26, 2017Background
- Jackie F. Curry was convicted of three counts of aggravated rape and received an effective 66‑year sentence; direct appeals and multiple collateral challenges were previously denied.
- In March 2013 Curry filed a petition styled as a motion to reopen post‑conviction proceedings, arguing his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him to reject a plea offer and that Lafler v. Cooper announced a new retroactive constitutional rule warranting reopening.
- The post‑conviction court denied the petition (treating it as both a motion to reopen and a habeas petition) and Curry filed a notice of appeal in the trial court; no formal application for permission to appeal under T.C.A. § 40‑30‑117(c) and Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28 was filed.
- The State argued dismissal on procedural grounds (failure to seek discretionary review) and also noted potential untimeliness under the one‑year limit after Lafler.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held it lacked jurisdiction because Curry did not follow the statutory procedure for seeking permission to appeal the denial of a motion to reopen (no timely application attaching required materials), and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lafler v. Cooper created a new retroactive rule justifying reopening under T.C.A. § 40‑30‑117(a)(1) | Curry: Lafler announced a new constitutional right that should be applied retrospectively permitting reopening for ineffective assistance re: rejected plea | State: Petition was filed more than one year after Lafler and thus untimely; merits not reached due to procedural defects | Court did not reach Lafler’s retroactivity on the merits; noted the State’s timeliness argument but dismissed appeal on procedural grounds |
| Whether the appeal from denial of a motion to reopen may proceed as an appeal of right | Curry: Filed a notice of appeal (treated as seeking review) | State: Denial of a motion to reopen requires an application for permission to appeal within 30 days attaching relevant documents; a notice of appeal is insufficient | Court held Curry failed to file the required application for permission to appeal and the notice of appeal lacked sufficient substance to be treated as such; court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (Supreme Court decision addressing prejudice in plea negotiation ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Fletcher v. State, 951 S.W.2d 378 (Tenn. 1997) (denial of motion to reopen post‑conviction is a discretionary appeal)
- Graham v. State, 90 S.W.3d 687 (Tenn. 2002) (notice of appeal may be treated as an application for permission to appeal only if it contains sufficient substance)