State of Tennessee v. Gary Carr, W2016-01525-CCA-R3-CD

In 1998 Gary Carr pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and received life without parole; he filed no post-judgment appeals.
In June 2016 Carr, pro se, filed a "Motion for Nunc Pro Tunc Order" claiming the clerk failed to file-stamp his 1998 judgment under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(e) and seeking to set aside the conviction and order a new trial.
He also alleged, for the first time on appeal, that his plea was unknowing and involuntary because he was threatened with the death penalty and that counsel was ineffective.
The trial court construed the filing as both a motion to withdraw the guilty plea and a petition for post-conviction relief, and summarily dismissed it: finding the Rule 11 colloquy proper, the plea voluntary, and that any post-conviction claim was time-barred.
Carr appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding (a) absence of a file-stamp did not invalidate the judgment where the signed judgment appeared in the record and entry into the minutes was shown, and (b) Carr failed to provide the plea transcript, so appellate review of voluntariness was precluded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Carr)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether absence of a clerk file-stamp on the 1998 uniform judgment requires setting aside the conviction	The judgment was never properly entered under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(e) because it lacks a file-stamped date; therefore conviction should be set aside	The judgment became final in 1998 and the record shows signed judgment entered into minutes; lack of stamp is clerical and does not void the conviction	Judgment not voided; file-stamp absence, at most, a clerical error; signed judgment and minutes establish entry
Whether Carr may withdraw his guilty plea as involuntary (manifest injustice) because he was threatened with the death penalty	Plea was unknowing/involuntary due to threats and ineffective assistance of counsel; manifest injustice warrants withdrawal	Plea was knowing, voluntary, intelligent; conviction final; plea withdrawal not justified	Denied. Appellate review precluded by appellant's failure to include plea transcript; trial court found Rule 11 colloquy complied and plea was voluntary
Whether post-conviction relief was timely or excused	(Implicit) Claimed due process grounds to waive limitations	Post-conviction claim is time-barred and no due process grounds alleged to excuse the statute of limitations	Trial court correctly dismissed alternative post-conviction petition as untimely with no asserted grounds to toll or waive limitations

State v. Stephens, 264 S.W.3d 719 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (file-stamped date governs timeliness of certain post-judgment filings)
Graham v. State, 90 S.W.3d 687 (Tenn. 2002) (timeliness measured from date order is filed with the clerk)
State v. Phelps, 329 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2010) (standard of review for motion to withdraw guilty plea is abuse of discretion)
State v. Crowe, 168 S.W.3d 731 (Tenn. 2005) (principles governing plea withdrawal review)
State v. Mellon, 118 S.W.3d 340 (Tenn. 2003) (constitutional violations narrow trial court discretion on plea withdrawal)
Vermilye v. State, 584 S.W.2d 226 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1979) (appellant’s duty to provide an adequate record for appellate review)