WPC/ wvAZ}jr/?qP̒E %.@N}6m$p{Z1 . QX t}ș0a}cn% 6D;h9ߴHJ!S3` 0gIAsTzF!&yq苛?"Tڋρmᶭ3BP+%FANCI/aH|LSۧJ8EZ$l.I UY9Jbיh/"H SwrR,yٻꉸ\POH!m⃸N ecM:ի=;UN)>TW;aT`l0 ƖQ 'Q8UtL!c>ǒ8Q.Xx1Jd-a˞H8^8>C>iDȕWֹ#WtOv͙T7*vHl@Rt[=INSJW#UN % 0(U@^ ? wK 4O c r mt - -  0U 0B 0+ 0 0 0 0E 0 0d 0C8 0{ R 0Z 0. 0    0   0 0 0M 0@  ^M 0 0 0P 0 0 0 0v 08 00 0<% 0a 0> 0v] 0` 0`3! 0`! 0`! 0`S" 08" 0" 02# 0# 0:$ 0Y%% 0_~% 0 % 0j& 0Q( B*) D/) D+.* 0Y* D/+ 0 , 06, 0- 0:. 0^R. 0<.U6.U>"/U*`/`/N/ B/HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($(I Z(Times New Roman 8-s ,-:i3|xU ##CXd# ##CXd# *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2*DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  456*;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  89*8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  ?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.(GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7G(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X7&  d dF)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7H(X7F)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial d !  _XxXXX XXx z z=xXXdd=@ #XxX J#XXxINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%AT#XxX# XXxԀJACKSON &   November13,2002Session L #XxX # XXx MARCOD.BUTLERv.STATEOFTENNESSEE%  %l #XxX %# J  AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals,  J Ѐ%  CriminalCourt%%  % DforShelbyCounty  6 @@No.% ! P24821%!ԀW.Otis_Higgs_,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.% # W200101376SCR11PCFiledDecember30,_2002%#_   AV) ` dE<h` A i     OnNovember19,1999,thedefendant,MarcoD.Butler,pleadedguiltyintheShelbyCounty P CriminalCourttofirstdegreemurderandespeciallyaggravatedrobberyinconnectionwiththedeath < ofCharles_Cantrell_.OnMarch13,2001,thedefendantfiledapostconvictionpetitionwhichwas (x dismissedbythetrialcourtasbeingtimebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.#XxXXXx+#XxXXXxԀHowever,the d defendantclaimedthatheoriginallycausedtobemailed,andthereforefiled,hispostconviction P petitiononOctober9,2000,thoughitwasneverreceivedbytheShelbyCountyCriminalCourt < Clerk'sOffice.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourt'sorderdismissingthe ( defendant'spetitionasbeinguntimelyfiled.WegrantedthisappealtodetermineiftheCourtof  CriminalAppealserredinaffirmingthedismissalofButler'spostconvictionpetitionastimebarred.  Afterexaminingthefactsandthelawrelevanttothisissue,weholdthatpursuanttoTennessee  SupremeCourtRule282(G)(Rule282(G))#XxXXXxi#XxXXXx,thedefendantisentitledtoanevidentiaryhearing  todeterminewhetherthedefendant'sallegedoriginalpostconvictionpetitionwastimelyfiled. t  XXxm % $ %$ #XxX #Tenn.R.App.P.11;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsReversedandCase r  RemandedtotheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  ^!    WilliamM.Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_,III,C.J., 6#" andE.RileyAnderson,_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,andJaniceM.Holder,JJ.,joined. "$r# MichaelE._Scholl_,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Marco_Dewayne_ԀButler. %J!% % ) %)PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;KimR. '"#' Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;BillGibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;E.Greg_Gilluly_,Jr., ($( AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. )$)   Z-(-  z  8xXXdd8    _@@OO& OPINION     XXxXxX STATEMENTOFTHECASE   #XxXXXx #    XxXXXxOnNovember19,1999,thedefendant,MarcoD.Butler,pleadedguiltyinShelbyCounty ` CriminalCourttofirstdegreemurderandespeciallyaggravatedrobberyinconnectionwiththedeath L  ofCharlesCantrell.Thedefendantwassentencedtoconcurrentsentencesoflifewithoutthe 8  possibilityofparoleandtwentyfive(25)years,respectively.#XxXXXx#ԀOnNovember19,2000,theoneyear $ t statuteoflimitationsforpostconvictionreliefexpiredforthedefendant.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.  ` 4030202(a)(1997).OnMarch13,2001,thedefendantfiledapostconvictionpetitionallegingthat  L  hisconvictionwasbaseduponacoercedconfessionandadenialofeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.  8  AlthoughtheMarchfilingdateisnearlyfourmonthsbeyondthestatutoryperiod,thedefendant $  assertsthatheoriginallycausedapreviouspostconvictionpetitiontobemailedfromhispenal   institutiononOctober9,2000,whichwaswithintheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsperiod,pursuant   toXxXXXxRule282(G)#XxXXXx#ԀandTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure49(c).     Accordingtothedefendant,XxXXXxonOctober9,2000,heenlistedtheaidofaCorrectionalOfficer, p Ms.RonlandaNorfolk,todeposithiscompletedprosepostconvictionpetitionintotheprison'smail \ system.#XxXXXxg#XxXXXxOnNovember29,2000,thedefendant,claiminghehadwaitedpatientlyforthirty(30)days H forthetrialcourttorespondpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030206(a),fileda 4 "MotionforStatusofCase."Inhismotion,thedefendantassertedthathehadforwardedhispost  p convictionpetitiononOctober9,2000totheShelbyCountyCriminalCourtthroughRonlanda  \ Norfolk,andhavingnotreceivedaresponse,heknewthat somethingwaswrong.Additionally, H thedefendantattachedaffidavitstohismotionfromRonlandaNorfolkandJackieBartlett.Inher 4 affidavit,Ms.Bartlett,anInmateRelationsCoordinatoratWestTennesseeStatePenitentiarySite   3,claimedthatshepreparedasix(6)monthaccountstatementforthedefendantforthepurposeof   supportinghisindigentstatusforfilingapostconvictionpetitiononOctober7,2000.#XxXXXx#ԀInMs.  Norfolk'saffidavit,whileacknowledgingthatshedroppedoffsome"legalmail"forthedefendant  onOctober9,2000,shedidnotspecifywhatwasincludedinthemailortowhomthemailwas  addressed. l   OnDecember22,2000,inresponsetothedefendant'smotion,theCriminalCourtClerk's D! Officeinformedthedefendantthatithadneverreceivedanypostconvictionpetitionfromhim.On 0"  February16,2001,thedefendantfiledaninmategrievanceclaimwiththeTennesseeDepartment #l! ofCorrectionsforimproperlyhandlinghispostconvictionpetition.Inhispostconvictionpetition $X" datedMarch13,2001,thedefendantlistedthedateofmailingasOctober9,2000,buthemadeno $D # referencetoanypreviouslyfiledpetition.Indismissingthedefendant'spostconvictionpetition,the %0!$ trialcourtstatedthatthe"petitionerallegesnoreasontotollthestatuteoflimitations,andthecourt &"% findsnoreason."Noevidentiaryhearingwasheldtodeterminewhetherthedefendantactually '#& causedhispostconvictionpetitiontobemailedonOctober9,2000.TheCourtofCriminalAppeals (#' affirmedthetrialcourt'sXxXXXxorderdismissingthedefendant'spostconvictionpetitionandheldthatthe )$(  petitioninthiscasewasfiledwellbeyondtheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,andis,therefore, |*%) untimely.#XxXXXxK"# h+&*   XxXXXxForthereasonsstatedherein,wereversethedecisionoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsand  holdthatthedefendantisentitledtoanevidentiaryhearingtodeterminewhetherhispostconviction  petitionwasproperlyfiledpursuanttotherequirementsofRule282(G)onOctober9,1999.  Accordingly,weremandthiscasetotheCriminalCourtforShelbyCountyanddirectthatitconduct t anevidentiaryhearingwhereinthedefendantwillhavetheburdenofshowingbyapreponderance ` oftheevidencethathisallegedoriginalpostconvictionpetitionwastimelyfiledpursuanttoRule L  282(G).#XxXXXx## 8    ANALYSIS   `     TheprocedureforfilingapostconvictionpetitionisarticulatedinRule282(G)which  8  provides,inpertinentpart, $  ` ` [i]fpapersrequiredorpermittedtobefiledbytheserulesare   preparedbyoronbehalfofaprosepetitionerincarceratedina   correctionalfacilityandarenotreceivedbytheclerkofthecourtuntil   afterthetimefixedforfiling,filingshallbetimelyifthepaperswere   deliveredtotheappropriateindividualatthecorrectionalfacility p withinthetimefixedforfiling....Shouldtimelinessoffilingor \ servicebecomeanissue,theburdenisontheprosepetitionerto H establishcompliancewiththisprovision. 4 ` ` (Emphasisadded).  p   Similarly,TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure49(c)providesthat H ` ` [i]fpapersrequiredorpermittedtobefiledpursuanttotherulesof 4 criminalprocedurearepreparedbyoronbehalfofaproselitigant   incarceratedinacorrectionalfacilityandarenotreceivedbytheclerk   ofthecourtuntilafterthetimefixedforfiling,filingshallbetimely  ifthepapersweredeliveredtotheappropriateindividualatthe  correctionalfacilitywithinthetimefixedforfiling.  ` ` (Emphasisadded). l   ThisCourthasrecentlynotedthatitisgenerallythedutyofthetrialcourtstoconduct D! evidentiaryhearingsonstatuteoflimitationsissuesthatdonotinvolveadeterminationofguiltor 0"  innocence.SeeStatev.Vickers,970S.W.2d444,448(Tenn.1998).Additionally,othercourts #l! whenfacedwithsimilarcircumstanceshavealsoremandedtothetrialcourtsforevidentiaryhearings $X" whenthereissomedisputeastowhetherinmateshavecompliedwiththeprovisionsofvarious $D # prisonmailboxrules.SeeHostlerv.Groves,912F.2d1158,1162(9thCir.1990),certdenied,498 %0!$ U.S.1120(1991);seealsoUnitedStatev.Grana,864F.2d312,316(3dCir.1989);Thompsonv. &"% Montgomery,853F.2d287,288(5thCir.1988);Mayerv.State,908P.2d56,59(Ariz.1995);Setala '#& v.J.C.PenneyCo.,40P.3d886,893(Haw.2002);Commonwealthv.Hargrove,553N.E.2d1299, (#' 1302(Mass.1990). )$(  h+&*  z  8xXXdXXd8      ThedefendantclaimsthatbytenderinghispostconvictionpetitiontoMs.Norfolk,a  correctionalofficer,onOctober9,2000,hefulfilledthefilingrequirementsofRule282(G).  Conversely,theStateclaimsthatButler'spetitionandsupportingaffidavitsfailtoshowthathe  tenderedhispostconvictionpetitionincompliancewithRule282(G).Specifically,theState t maintainsthat thereisnoevidencethatthedefendanttimelydeliveredthepostconvictionpetition ` totheappropriateprisonauthoritiesformailingwithintheapplicabletimeforfiling.Statev. L  Neely,34S.W.3d879,881(Tenn.Crim.App.2000).Accordingly,theStateassertsthatthe 8  defendantisnotentitledtoahearing. $ t   TheStatecitesNeelyforthepropositionthatthedefendantspetitionwasproperlydismissed.  L  InNeely,theCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedanorderdismissingadefendantspostconviction  8  petitiononsimilarfacts.Id.However,wefindtheinstantcasedistinguishablefromNeelyinseveral $  importantrespects.First,itisapparentfromtheopinioninNeelythatahearingwasheldinthatcase   todeterminewhetherthedefendantcompliedwithRule282(G)giventhattheCourtofCriminal   Appeals'opinionnotesthatthedefendant testifiedastowhenhemailedhispostconviction   petition.Id.at880.Additionally,thesoleproofsupportingthedefendantsclaimthathetimelyfiled   hispostconvictionpetitionwashisowntestimony.Id.at881.Insharpcontrast,noevidentiary p hearingwasheldinthiscasetoallowButlertoprovewhenhemailedhisfirstallegedpost \ convictionpetition.Althoughtheaffidavitssubmittedbythedefendantareclearlyinadequateto H establishthattheOctober2000petitionwasproperlydeliveredtothe appropriateindividualfor 4 filing,theydocertainlylendsupporttothedefendantsposition.Wethereforeholdthatthe  p defendanthasallegedsufficientfactstomakeathresholdshowingthathehascompliedwithRule  \ 282(G).Weconcludethatheisentitledtoanevidentiaryhearingwhereinthetrialcourtmust H determinewhetherthedefendantcanprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethat:1)heactually 4 filedapostconvictionpetitionbytenderingittoMs.NorfolkonOctober9,2000,and2)Ms.   Norfolkwasan"appropriateindividual"forpostconvictionpetitionfilingpurposeswithinthe   meaningofRule282(G).    Determiningwhoisan"appropriateindividual"forpurposesoffilingpostconviction  petitionsunderRule282(G)orTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure49(c)willbeaquestionof l factbestresolvedbythevarioustrialcourtsofthisstate.Wedeclinetoadoptabrightlinerulein X  thisregardbecausedifferentcorrectionalfacilitiesmayhavedivergentguidelinesorcustoms D! regardingtheappropriateindividual(s)towhomprisonersshouldfilelegalmail.However,anysuch 0"  calculusshouldincludeanaccountingoftherules,guidelines,and/orcustomarypracticesrelating #l! totheprisonmailsystemusedbythecorrectionalfacilityinquestion,aswellasanyotherfactor(s) $X" deemedappropriateunderthecircumstances. $D #   CONCLUSION &"%      Fortheforegoingreasons,wereversethejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsand (#' concludethatthedefendanthaspresentedevidencesuchthathehasmadeathresholdshowingof )$( compliancewithTennesseeSupremeCourtRule282(G).Accordingly,weremandthiscaseto |*%) theCriminalCourtforShelbyCountytodeterminewhetherthedefendantcanshowbya h+&* preponderanceoftheevidencethathecompliedwithRule282(G)infilinghispostconviction  petition.    CostofthisappealaretaxedtotheStateofTennessee. t    `     h      p _____________________________ L  =xXXdXXd=   `     h      p WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE# XXx5#