380 S.W.3d 30
Tenn.2012Background
- Lowe-Kelley was convicted of two counts of first degree murder and nine counts of attempted first degree murder.
- Judgment was entered May 11, 2009, with consecutive life sentences and nine 15-year terms for attempted murders.
- Eighteen days later, counsel filed a skeletal motion for a new trial under Rule 33 without grounds for relief.
- Replacement counsel was appointed; an amended motion adding nine specific grounds for relief was filed January 20, 2010.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals held the original skeletal motion was a nullity and thus that the amended grounds were waived; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a timely motion for a new trial that lacks specific grounds satisfy Rule 33(b)? | State contends the May 29, 2009 motion complied with Rule 33(b) and conferred jurisdiction to amend. | Lowe-Kelley argues the skeletal motion failed to state grounds and therefore waives relief. | Yes; the motion satisfied Rule 33(b) and conferred jurisdiction to amend. |
| May the trial court permit amendment of a skeletal motion for new trial? | State argues the court should liberally permit amendments to timely skeletal motions. | Lowe-Kelley contends amendments should be limited or denied if the original motion is deficient. | Yes; the trial court may permit amendments to include specific grounds for relief. |
| Did the amended motion cure any waiver or jurisdiction issues? | State maintains amendment preserved grounds and preserved appellate review. | Lowe-Kelley argues amendment does not retroactively cure defects in the original motion. | Yes; the amendment properly preserved the grounds for appeal and the court retained jurisdiction. |
| Was the trial court’s decision to permit amendment an abuse of discretion? | State defends the discretionary allowance of amendment. | Lowe-Kelley contends the amendment was improperly granted. | No; the trial court did not abuse discretion in permitting the amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hatcher, 310 S.W.3d 788 (Tenn. 2010) (waiver of issues not raised in a motion for new trial; timeliness governs jurisdiction)
- State v. Bough, 152 S.W.3d 453 (Tenn. 2004) (trial court lacks jurisdiction over late-filed judgments; cannot rule on merits)
- State v. Ferrante, 269 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2008) (rules of criminal procedure interpretation; de novo review of rule interpretation)
- Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009) (pleadings construed by relief sought; skeletal motions may be valid with amendments)