Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2017
from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 40000140
Jill Bartee Ayers, Judge
se Petitioner, Quinton Albert Cage, appeals the denial of his
motion to reopen his petition for post-conviction relief.
Following our review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction because the Petitioner failed to comply with the
statutory requirements to seek discretionary review of a
motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
Quinton Albert Cage, Nashville, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; M.
Todd Ridley, Assistant Attorney General; John W. Carney,
District Attorney General; and Arthur Bieber, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Camille R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Robert L. Holloway,
Jr., J., joined.
CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE
December 1994, the Petitioner was convicted of aggravated
rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery,
attempted aggravated robbery, and reckless endangerment with
a deadly weapon. See State v. Quinton Cage, No.
01C01-9605-CC-00179, 1999 WL 30595 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 26,
1999). He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of
fifty-five years' incarceration, and this court affirmed
the Petitioner's convictions and sentences on direct
then, the Petitioner has attempted on numerous occasions to
challenge his convictions and sentences, including a
post-conviction petition, Quinton A. Cage v. State,
No. M2000-01989-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 881357 (Tenn. Crim. App.
Aug. 7, 2001); two petitions for a writ of habeas
corpus, Quinton Cage v. Howard Carlton, Warden, No.
E2008-00357-CCA-R3-HC, 2008 WL 3245567 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug.
8, 2008); Quinton Albert Cage v. David Sexton,
Warden, No. E2011-01609-CCA-R3-HC, 2012 WL 2764998
(Tenn. Crim. App. July 10, 2012); and a petition for a writ
of error coram nobis, which was subsequently converted into a
motion to reopen post-conviction proceedings, Quinton A.
Cage v. State, No. M2011-00234-CCA-R3-PC, 2012 WL
4841318 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 5, 2012). All of these
pleadings were either denied or dismissed, and this court
affirmed their dispositions.
Petitioner's present motion to reopen post-conviction
proceedings was filed on November 30, 2016. In his petition,
the Petitioner asserts that the United States Supreme
Court's decision in Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S.
419 (1995), established a new rule of constitutional law that
should be retroactively applied to his case. See
T.C.A. § 40-30-117(a)(1) (allowing post-conviction
proceedings to be reopened under limited circumstances,
including when the claim is "based upon a final ruling
of an appellate court establishing a constitutional right
that was not recognized as existing at the time of trial, if
retrospective application of that right is required").
On December 7, 2016, the post-conviction court filed an order
dismissing the Petitioner's motion to reopen
post-conviction proceedings for failure to state a colorable
claim. The Petitioner filed a pro se notice of appeal on
December 21, 2016.
initial matter, the State urges this court to dismiss the
present appeal because the Petitioner failed to follow the
procedural requirements for appealing the dismissal of a
motion to reopen a post-conviction petition. We agree.
petitioner has no appeal as of right from a lower court's
denial of a motion to reopen a post-conviction petition under
Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b). See Fletcher
v. State, 951 S.W.2d 378, 382 (Tenn. 1997). Instead,
"an appeal from the denial of a motion to reopen is a
discretionary appeal." Id. (emphasis
in original). Accordingly, when a motion to reopen a petition
for post-conviction relief is denied, a petitioner has thirty
days to file an application for permission to appeal in this
court, attaching copies of all documents filed by the parties
and the lower court's order. T.C.A. § 40-30-117(c);
Tenn. S.Ct. R. 28, § 10(B). The Tennessee Supreme Court
has summarized the requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated
section 40-30-117, stating that it "outlines four
requirements of an appeal from a motion to reopen to be
considered: (1) the timeliness of filing, (2) the place of
filing, (3) the application to be filed, and (4) the
attachments to the application." Graham v.
State, 90 S.W.3d 687, 689 (Tenn. 2002). In order for a
pleading entitled "Notice of Appeal" to be treated