Quanya Revell Prewitt v. State of Tennessee
M2015-02090-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Prewitt was convicted in 2012 of possession with intent to sell a Schedule III drug in a school zone and received a four-year sentence (three years at 100% plus one year probation). Her direct appeal was affirmed in 2013; she did not timely seek permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
- Prewitt filed a timely pro se post-conviction petition in February 2014; counsel was appointed and the post-conviction court granted a delayed Rule 11 appeal and dismissed the post-conviction proceeding without prejudice so she could pursue the delayed appeal. The delayed-appeal application was later dismissed as untimely.
- Prewitt filed a second pro se post-conviction petition in January 2015; counsel was appointed and an amended petition alleged multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims and prosecutorial misconduct related to a superseding indictment.
- The post-conviction court held an evidentiary hearing, denied relief on the merits, but also granted a delayed Rule 11 appeal and expressly stated it would hold proceedings in abeyance pending the Rule 11 outcome — yet simultaneously allowed Prewitt to pursue the Rule 11 application and the present post-conviction appeal.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals found the post-conviction court failed to follow Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28, § 9(D)(1)(b)(i), which mandates granting a delayed Rule 11 appeal, staying post-conviction proceedings, and making that order final for appeal when a petitioner was deprived of the right to request a Rule 11 appeal.
- Because the post-conviction court improperly allowed simultaneous pursuit of a Rule 11 delayed appeal and adjudication of other post-conviction claims, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the denial of post-conviction relief and remanded for proceedings consistent with Rule 28 (including allowing amendment to add any new issues arising from the delayed appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-conviction court complied with Rule 28 by allowing simultaneous delayed Rule 11 appeal and post-conviction adjudication | Prewitt argued she was entitled to adjudication of her post-conviction claims despite Rule 11 proceedings and that the court's order allowed continuation | State argued the court's handling was appropriate given procedural history and prior failed attempts to perfect Rule 11 appeal | Court held the post-conviction court erred: Rule 28 requires granting delayed appeal and staying post-conviction proceedings when petitioner was deprived of Rule 11 rights |
| Whether denial of post-conviction relief should be final while Rule 11 delayed appeal is pending | Prewitt sought final resolution of post-conviction claims now | State effectively supported the court's contemporaneous adjudication | Court reversed denial and remanded for compliance with Rule 28; post-conviction court must stay proceedings and allow amendment after Rule 11 outcome |
| Whether petitioner can later amend to add issues arising from the delayed appeal | Prewitt asked to preserve right to raise new issues after Rule 11 resolution | State did not dispute amendment right but relied on merits ruling | Court confirmed petitioner may amend original petition to raise new issues resulting from handling of delayed appeal |
| Whether strict statute-of-limitations bars later petitions after earlier dismissal without prejudice | Prewitt contended dismissal of initial petition should not foreclose relief due to procedural complexities | State might rely on timeliness rules to bar later petitions | Court noted strict limitations could deny meaningful opportunity and cited Williams balancing due process, implying timeliness concerns require flexible application in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (explaining reasons to avoid simultaneous direct appeal and collateral attack; timeliness and due-process considerations for post-conviction petitions)
- Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (discussing statute-of-limitations and fair opportunity to assert post-conviction claims)