State v. Scotty Wright ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION
December 12, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Appellate Court Clerk
)
Appellee, ) No. 01C01-9609-CR-00414
)
) Putnam County
v. )
) Honorable Leon Burns, Jr., Judge
)
SCOTTY WRIGHT, ) (Sentencing)
)
Appellant. )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
David Neal Brady John Knox Walkup
District Public Defender Attorney General of Tennessee
and and
H. Marshall Judd Janis L. Turner
Assistant Public Defender Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee 215
215 Reagan Street 450 James Robertson Parkway
Cookeville, TN 38501 Nashville, TN 37243-0493
William Edward Gibson
District Attorney General
and
Lillie Ann Sells
Assistant District Attorney General
145 South Jefferson Avenue
Cookeville, TN 38501
OPINION FILED:____________________
APPEAL DISMISSED
Joseph M. Tipton
Judge
OPINION
The defendant, Scotty Wright, appeals as of right from the Putnam
County Criminal Court relative to sentences imposed upon him for two offenses of the
sale of over .5 grams of cocaine, Class B felonies. He received two eight-year
concurrent sentences, with split confinement ordered by which he was to serve one
year in jail with the balance suspended and then be placed on probation for eleven
years. In this appeal, he complains about the one year of confinement that was
imposed.
The issue in this case is moot. The judgments of conviction were entered
August 13, 1996, and provided the defendant with one hundred five days pretrial jail
credit as of August 12, 1996. The judgments state that the defendant was to be
released from jail on April 29, 1997. The record reflects that the defendant remained in
jail pending this appeal.
Thus, the defendant served his year in confinement by the end of April
1997, approximately one month after the appellee’s brief was filed by the state. With
the sole issue being whether the defendant should have been confined for a year, the
matter is moot and the case should be dismissed. See State ex rel. Lewis v. State, 208
Tenn. 534, 537-38, 347 S.W.2d 47, 48 (1961); State v. Rogers, 703 S.W.2d 166, 169
(Tenn. Crim. App. 1985).
We note that there was no request for an expedited appeal process and
decision in this case. See T.R.A.P. 2. Also, although the defendant filed a motion in
May 1997 to dismiss his appeal, accompanied by his signed affidavit to that effect,
neither the motion nor the affidavit provide any basis for the dismissal. That is, the
motion simply states that the defendant “moves the court to dismiss his appeal.” The
2
motion was denied in May 1997 for the failure of the defendant’s affidavit to show that
he had been advised of his appeal rights and expressly waived those rights. See Tenn.
Ct. Crim. App. R. 11. No further action was taken by the parties. 1 Thus, this case
remained on the active docket and was ultimately assigned to this panel.
In any event, we hold that this case should be dismissed for mootness
with the costs taxed against the defendant.
_______________________________
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
________________________
John H. Peay, Judge
________________________
David H. Welles, Judge
1
The appellate court clerk’s file contains a copy of a letter dated April 15, 1997, from the
defendant’s counsel to the assistant attorney general assigned to this case noting that a motion and order
to dismiss the appeal would be filed because the defendant had served his time and the issue on appeal
was moot. Thus, although counsel for the parties were then aware that the appeal should be dismissed,
no one notified this court. Counsel should not assume that sending to the clerk a copy of a letter
addressed to opposing counsel will be brought to the attention of the court or that it is even proper for the
court to take note of it as a matter of proof.
3