Assigned on Briefs July 25, 2017 at Knoxville
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 06-06182 W.
Mark Ward, Judge
Defendant, Donald Ragland, appeals the trial court's
summary dismissal of his motion to correct a clerical error
pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The
Defendant has failed to present an appropriate argument under
Rule 36; therefore, we affirm the summary dismissal pursuant
to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of
Ragland, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrew
C. Coulam, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich,
District Attorney General; and Gregory Gilbert, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
E. Glenn, delivered the opinion of the court, in which Robert
H. Montgomery, Jr., J., joined. J. Ross Dyer, J., not
E. GLENN, JUDGE
Defendant is currently serving a life sentence for the first
degree premeditated murder of LaAunzae Grady. The underlying
facts leading to his conviction and sentence are detailed in
this court's opinion on direct appeal. State v.
Donald Ragland, No. W2008-02065-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL
4825182, at *1-7 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2009), perm.
app. denied (Tenn. May 11, 2010). Subsequent to the
denial of his direct appeal, the Defendant filed for
post-conviction relief. After a hearing, the post- conviction
court denied relief, and the denial was upheld on appeal.
Donald Ragland v. State, No. W2012-00743-CCA-R3PC,
2013 WL 967769, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2013),
perm. app. denied (Tenn. July 12, 2013). The
Defendant then filed a "Motion to Reconsider Relief from
Judgment, " which was also denied by the trial court.
Absent jurisdiction, this court dismissed the Defendant's
subsequent appeal from the denial of his motion. Donald
Ragland v. State, No. W2013-02778-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL
6203884, at *8-10 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 10, 2014).
January 24, 2017, the Defendant filed a pro se "Motion
for Correction of Clerical Mistake-Error" which forms
the basis of this appeal. In his motion, the Defendant
alleged five "clerical" mistakes, including: (1)
"[t]he record does not establish that the
magistrate's passing on the 48-hour hold form was a true
[j]udicial determination of probable cause;" (2)
information establishing probable cause for his arrest was
omitted and/or the information contained in the arrest
warrant was false, rendering his arrest and the evidence
resulting from his arrest illegal; (3) the record for his
direct appeal does not contain a motion in limine granted by
the trial court on his behalf; (4) the Defendant was not
afforded an opportunity to cross-examine, at trial or
evidentiary hearing, the "witnesses that provided
information to the police that establishe[d] probable cause
for [his] arrest/seizure/48hr detention hold 12/12/05";
and (5) the record is absent of "the trial court['s]
factual findings that collaborate the [Defendant's]
pre-trial statement alleging a 5 or 6 man gang conspiracy to
kill the victim." The trial court dismissed the motion,
concluding, "The motion, even if taken as true, does not
state a claim for correction of a clerical mistake. It is
nothing more than an attempt to relitigate his previous
direct appeal and post-conviction." This appeal
Defendant filed his motion under Rule 36 of the Tennessee
Rules of Criminal Procedure. "The ambit of Rule 36 of
the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure is the correction
of clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or the
record." State v. Douglas Zweig, No.
W2015-00449-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 7752284, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Nov. 30, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Mar.
23, 2016); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36. This court reviews the trial
court's ruling on a Rule 36 motion for clerical errors
for an abuse of discretion. Id. at *1.
crux of the Defendant's arguments on appeal rests upon
his assertion that the arrest warrant giving rise to his
conviction lacked probable cause, which he claims is a
clerical error. Further, the Defendant argues "specific
information, " as alleged in his motion, is omitted from
the record which is "crucial to the findings of guilt
for [f]irst [d]egree murder." The Defendant suggests
that "the evidence in [the] record may preponderate
against the findings of fact underlying the trial
court['s] conclusion that the police had probable cause
to believe [he] was guilty of the crime charged[.]"
Finally, the Defendant asserts "a matter of
misapplication of the law" occurred on direct appeal
when this court upheld the trial court's finding that
sufficient probable cause existed to support the
Defendant's arrest which led to his conviction. We,
our review of the record, it is evident the Defendant is
attempting to characterize the alleged omissions in his
arrest warrant as a clerical error in an effort to show the
police lacked probable cause for his arrest which gave rise
to his conviction. However, it is well-settled that issues
"decided and disposed of in a direct appeal" cannot
be relitigated in habeas corpus or post-conviction
proceedings. Long v. State, 510 S.W.2d 83, 87 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1974) (internal citations omitted). This rule of
law must be applied to the Defendant's present arguments,
as "[i]ndescribable chaos in the administration of
criminal justice surely would be the inevitable consequence
of a contrary ruling permitting convict[ed] persons to raise
repeatedly and without limitation questions previously and
finally adjudicated adversely to their contentions."
direct appeal, this court specifically addressed the trial
court's probable cause determination in the context of
the denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress his
statement made upon arrest, concluding that "the police
had probable cause to believe the Defendant had killed the
victim." Donald Ragland, 2009 WL 4825182, at
*8. Thus, this court has previously determined probable cause
existed in the Defendant's case. As noted by the State,
the trial court "correctly determined that the
[D]efendant is trying to relitigate a Fourth Amendment issue
in the guise of a motion to correct clerical error."
Accordingly, the Defendant has ...