Assigned on Briefs February 14, 2018
Appeal
from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2001-A-273
Steve R. Dozier, Judge.
Mario
Antoine Leggs, the Defendant, filed a motion requesting an ex
parte injunction and hearing, arguing that the judgments in
his case were invalid because they did not have a file stamp
date. The trial court denied the Defendant's motion
because the judgments were signed by the trial court and
entered on November 29, 2001. On appeal, the Defendant argues
that the trial court erred in denying relief. The State
contends that the Defendant does not have an appeal as of
right under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 from the
denial of a motion requesting injunctive relief.
Additionally, the State argues that the lack of a file stamp
date does not invalidate the Defendant's judgments. After
a thorough review of the facts and applicable case law, we
dismiss the Defendant's appeal.
Tenn.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal Dismissed
Mario
Antoine Leggs, Clifton, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Alexander C. Vey, Assistant Attorney General; Glenn Funk,
District Attorney General; and J. Wesley King, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Tennessee.
Robert
L. Holloway, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Robert W. Wedemeyer, J.,
joined.
OPINION
ROBERT
L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE.
I.
Factual and Procedural History
In
2001, the Defendant was convicted of theft of property under
the value of $500, robbery, aggravated robbery, two counts of
reckless endangerment, two counts of evading arrest, three
counts of reckless aggravated assault, driving on a suspended
license, and leaving the scene of an accident. State v.
Mario Antoine Leggs, No. M2002-01022-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL
21189783, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 21, 2003), perm.
app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 6, 2003). The Defendant received
a total effective sentence of twenty-three years, eleven
months, and twenty-eight days. Id. The Defendant
appealed his convictions and sentence, and this court held
that there was insufficient evidence to support count twelve
of the indictment, evading arrest. Id. This court
reversed and vacated the Defendant's conviction for count
twelve but otherwise affirmed the judgments of the trial
court. Id. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied
further review of the Defendant's convictions and
sentence.
In
2003, the Defendant filed a petition for post-conviction
relief and alleged that he received ineffective assistance of
counsel and that his sentences were invalid under Blakely
v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Mario Antoine
Leggs v. State, No. M2004-00756-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL
1412092, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 14, 2005), no perm.
app. filed. The post-conviction court denied relief
after finding that the Petitioner received effective
assistance of counsel, and this court affirmed the
post-conviction court's decision. Id. The
Defendant did not seek further review of his post-conviction
petition. In 2004, the Defendant filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus and "asserted that his judgments were
void because the trial court imposed both consecutive and
concurrent sentences, a sentencing structure he contended was
in violation of the statutory sentencing requirements."
Mario Leggs v. Howard Carlton, No.
E2005-00136-CCA-R3-HC, 2005 WL 1566546, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. July 6, 2005), no perm. app. filed. The habeas
corpus court dismissed the petition because it did not allege
a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief, and this court
affirmed the habeas corpus court's dismissal under Rule
20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Id. The
Defendant did not seek further review of his habeas corpus
petition.
In
2017, the Defendant filed a document in the Davidson County
Criminal Court entitled "Ex Parte Injunction And/Or Show
Cause Order[, ]" which argued that "the Tennessee
Department of Correction (TDOC) d[id] not have proper custody
over [the] Defendant's person" because his judgments
did not have a file stamp date. The Defendant requested an ex
parte hearing under Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02
"to determine when Judgment 2001-A-273, Counts 2-9 were
'entered' in order to determine whether or not TDOC
has proper custody over the Defendant" and "to
determine the extent of such failure to adhere to the
mandatory provisions of Rule 32(e), Tenn. R. Crim. P.,
c.f. Rule 17, Tenn. S.Ct. R."
In its
order denying injunctive relief to the Defendant, the trial
court concluded that "[t]he judgment was signed by the
[trial] [c]ourt and the Attorney for the State on November
29, 2001. Additionally, the clerk entered the judgment into
the Metro Nashville Criminal Justice Information System
(CJIS) on November 29, 2001, thus, fulfilling the
requirements of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32." The Defendant now
timely appeals the trial court's decision.
II.
...