Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2018
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 09-02409,
09-03985 J. Robert Carter, Jr., Judge
se Defendant, Bobby McKinley, appeals the Shelby County
Criminal Court's denial of his motion to vacate his
judgments for aggravated robbery, arguing that the uniform
judgment forms were not properly entered because the
"file-stamp" was not on the face of the judgments
and the judgments contained other clerical errors. Following
our review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal DISMISSED
McKinley, Mason, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Jonathan H. Wardle, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P.
Weirich, District Attorney General; and Glen Baity, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
John Everett Williams and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.
E. GLENN, JUDGE
record in this case is sparse and incomplete. From the
documents included, it appears that on April 14, 2009, the
Shelby County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging the
Defendant in case number 09-02409 with two counts of
aggravated robbery. On June 25, 2009, the Shelby County Grand
Jury returned another indictment charging the Defendant in
case number 09-03985 with four additional counts of
aggravated robbery. On January 21, 2010, the Defendant
entered guilty pleas in connection with those two cases, as
well as case number 09-02221, in which he was apparently
charged with attempted aggravated robbery and aggravated
assault. Included in the record are three judgments, one for
count one of case number 09-02409, one for count one of
09-03985, and a second judgment for count one of 09-03985
that appears to show where the pretrial jail credit period
was changed to 10/5/08 through 1/21/10.
judgments reflect that the Defendant was sentenced as a Range
I, standard offender to eight years at thirty percent for the
aggravated robbery in count one of case number 09-02409 and
eight years at thirty percent for the aggravated robbery in
count one of case number 09-03985. The judgments further
reflect that the sentences were ordered to be served
concurrently to each other and to the sentences in case
number 09-02221. Each judgment is signed by the Defendant,
the Defendant's counsel, the prosecutor and the judge and
has a date of entry of January 21, 2010. A file-stamp is not
on the copies of the judgments that are included in the
record and the portions of the judgments with spaces for the
name of the attorney for the State, the Defendant's
alias, "TDOC #, " "State Control #" and
"State ID #" are left blank.
April 19, 2017, the Defendant filed a pro se "Motion
Requesting an Order to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment" in
which he alleged that the judgments for count one in case
number 09-03985 and count one in case number 09-02409 were
"ineffective, invalid and/or defective" because the
"file-stamp" was not stamped on the face of the
judgments and the above-mentioned information was omitted.
The Defendant also included a one line sentence asserting
that his counsel provided ineffective assistance during
10, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying the
Defendant's motion. Among other things, the court found
that the omissions constituted "clerical errors, at
best." The court also noted that the Defendant, from his
pleadings, was currently in federal custody and was
attempting in his motion to attack expired state ...