WPCM 24 ZB}HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSx6X@7X@a1AutoList12$ a2AutoList12/ a3AutoList12: 2 faa4AutoList12E a5AutoList12P   a6AutoList12[   a7AutoList12f  2R }  !a8AutoList12q a1AutoList11 $ a2AutoList11 / a3AutoList11 : 2  -  a4AutoList11 E a5AutoList11 P a6AutoList11[ a7AutoList11f 24  }   a8AutoList11q  a1AutoList10$!" a2AutoList10/#$ a3AutoList10:%& 2 f aa4AutoList10E'( a5AutoList10P)* a6AutoList10[+, a7AutoList10f-. 2R}!a8AutoList10q/0 a1AutoList9$12 a2AutoList9/34 a3AutoList9:56 2-a4AutoList9E78 a5AutoList9P9: a6AutoList9[;< a7AutoList9f=> 24 !}"#a8AutoList9 q?@ a1AutoList8!$AB a2AutoList8"/CD a3AutoList8#:EF 2 $f%&'aa4AutoList8$EGH a5AutoList8%PIJ a6AutoList8&[KL a7AutoList8'fMN 2(R)}*+!a8AutoList8(qOP a1AutoList7)$QR a2AutoList7*/ST a3AutoList7+:UV 2 ,-.-/a4AutoList7,EWX a5AutoList7-PYZ a6AutoList7.[[\ a7AutoList7/f]^ 24#0 1}!2"3"a8AutoList70q_` a1AutoList61$ab a2AutoList62/cd a3AutoList63:ef 2 &4f#5$6$7a%a4AutoList64Egh a5AutoList65Pij a6AutoList66[kl a7AutoList67fmn 2(8R&9}':';!(a8AutoList68qop a1AutoList59$qr a2AutoList5:/st a3AutoList5;:uv 2+<(=)>-*?*a4AutoList5[{| a7AutoList5?f}~ 24.@+A},B-C-a8AutoList5@q a1AutoList4A$ a2AutoList4B/ a3AutoList4C: 2 1Df.E/F/Ga0a4AutoList4DE a5AutoList4EP a6AutoList4F[ a7AutoList4Gf 23HR1I}2J2K!3a8AutoList4Hq a1AutoList3I$ a2AutoList3J/ a3AutoList3K: 26L3M4N-5O5a4AutoList3LE a5AutoList3MP a6AutoList3N[ a7AutoList3Of 249P6Q}7R8S8a8AutoList3Pq a1Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Q$ a2Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)R/ a3Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)S: 2 <Tf9U:V:Wa;a4Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)TE a5Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)UP a6Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)V[ a7Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Wf 2>XR<Y}=Z=[!>a8Paragraph1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)Xq a1AutoList2Y$ a2AutoList2Z/ a3AutoList2[: 2A\>]?^-@_@a4AutoList2\E a5AutoList2]P a6AutoList2^[ a7AutoList2_f 24D`Aa}BbCcCa8AutoList2`q a1AutoList1a$ a2AutoList1b/ a3AutoList1c: 2 GdfDeEfEgaFa4AutoList1dE a5AutoList1eP a6AutoList1f[ a7AutoList1gf 2yMhRGH0Ha8AutoList1hq X0Í ÍX0Í Íҫx6X@7X@<6X9`(CourierXXZ2PXP,  AZ"Arial RegularX2PP,cAZ"Arial RegularXZ2PXP,cAZ"Arial RegularXx6X@7X@<6X9`(CourierXXZ2PXP,  AZ"Arial RegularXXZ2PXP,cAZ"Arial RegularX2MM3|x `     A'Legal #XZ2PXP# @@ IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE F&AT NASHVILLE dddd 1 dddd 1  !` 8` 8#2PP# FILED#XZ2PXP# December 7, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk  N"OCTOBER 1999 SESSION ă WILLIAM LEE DRUMBARGER,  ) ) Appellant,)C.C.A. No. M1999 01444 CCA R3PC ) vs.)Davidson County ) STATE OF TENNESSEE,hhh )Hon. J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge ) ` ` ` Appellee.  )(Postconviction) ) FOR THE APPELLANT:FOR THE APPELLEE: DAVID BORDENKIRCHER  PAUL G. SUMMERS Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 500 Paragon Mills Rd., Ste. G6 Nashville, TN 372113734hhh ELIZABETH T. RYAN Assistant Attorney General  hhh 425 Fifth Ave. North  2d Floor, Cordell Hull Bldg. Nashville, TN 372430493  VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III   District Attorney General 222 Second Ave. North, Ste. 500 Nashville, TN 372011649  OPINION FILED:________________ APPEAL DISMISSED JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE #x6X@7X@#    #XZ2PXP# A'Legal A'Legal    q) OPINION ă The petitioner, William Lee Drumbarger, purports to appeal from the trial courts dismissal of his motion to reopen his postconviction petition. See Tenn. Code Ann.  4030217 (1997). The petitioner is presently serving five life sentences and a 35year sentence, all concurrently, for his 1983 convictions of five counts of aggravated rape and one count of aggravated sexual battery. See William Lee Drumbarger v. State, No. 01C019105CR00142 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 21, 1991), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1992). In this action, he seeks to reopen a postconviction petition that was dismissed by the Davidson County Criminal Court in June 1997. He raises various allegations, including allegedly deficient reasonable doubt jury instructions, ineffective assistance of counsel, insufficient indictments, and exemption from the statute of limitations. Upon review, we find that the defendant failed to follow the proper procedure for seeking appellate review of the lower courts denial of the motion to reopen. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as not properly before the court. The PostConviction Procedure Act provides ` ` ` If the motion [to reopen] is denied, the petitioner shall have ten (10) days to file an application in the court of criminal appeals seeking permission to appeal. The application shall be accompanied by copies of all the documents filed by both parties in the trial court and the order denying the motion.  The state shall have ten (10) days to respond. The court of criminal appeals shall not grant the application unless it appears that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. If it determines that the trial court did so abuse its discretion, the court of criminal appeals shall remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Tenn. Code Ann.  4030217(c) (1997) (emphasis added). This court has no authority to ignore the statutory limit of ten days for filing an application seeking permission to appeal a denial of a motion to reopen.  #XZ2PXP#эWe acknowledge that the Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a notice of appeal document is not jurisdictional in criminal cases, and this court may waive the timely filing of such document in the interest of justice. Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a). However, appellate scrutiny of a trial courts denial of a motion to reopen is initiated by the statutory guidelines of the PostConviction Procedure Act, not by notice of appeal as prescribed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Thus, Rule 4(a) does not provide us an avenue for waiving the Acts requirements in the interest of justice. But cf. Maurice Donaldson v. State, No. 01C019611CR00463 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Feb. 18, 1998) (although petitioner failed to follow procedure of Code section 4030217(c), appellate court reviewed case on its merits), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1998). Denver Joe McMath, Sr. v. State, No. 03C019712CR00525, slip op. at 3 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 9, 1999). The petitioner in the case at bar did not follow the application for appeal procedure of section 4030217(c). The trial court dismissed his motion to reopen on December 15, 1998, and he filed a notice of appeal in the trial court on January 14, 1999. The notice of appeal was filed with the clerk of the appellate courts on January 15, 1999. Its wording is that typical of an appeal as of right, see Tenn. R. App. P. 3, and it wholly fails to indicate that the petitioner is applying for review of the trial courts denial of his motion to reopen. None of the required documents prescribed by section 4030217(c) are attached. Perhaps most significantly, the filing was not within the ten days prescribed by the statute. The petitioners case is not properly before the court. See, e.g., Jimmy Wayne Wilson v. State, No. 03C019611CR00409, slip op. at 67 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Oct. 30, 1997); Daniel Villers v. State, No. 01C019704CR00129 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 4, 1997) (order), perm. app. denied (Tenn. 1998). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  ________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE CONCUR: _____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE _____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE