Willie Claybrook's appeal for habeas corpus relief was denied by the Circuit Court for Gibson County, and the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this denial. The State requested affirmation under Rule 20, citing that Claybrook did not timely file his notice of appeal, which is required to be filed within thirty days of the judgment. The Petitioner did not respond to the State's motion, and the court found no justification to waive the timely filing requirement. Claybrook's original conviction for second-degree murder, which followed a reversal of a first-degree murder conviction, had previously been upheld on direct appeal. His subsequent attempts for post-conviction relief were also unsuccessful. The habeas petition was dismissed by the trial court due to the absence of the judgment of conviction, as mandated by Tennessee law. The court noted that while waiver of the notice requirement is possible in the interest of justice, it should not be automatic, and Claybrook's pro se status does not exempt him from adhering to procedural deadlines. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Waiver consideration includes the nature of the issues, reasons for delay, and relevant factors. The Court identifies several issues with the Petitioner’s case:
1. The Petitioner did not attach the required judgment form to his petition, which may lead to dismissal per Tennessee Code Annotated 29-21-107(b)(2).
2. The petition was filed in Gibson County instead of Lake County, where the Petitioner was confined, contrary to Tenn. Code Ann. 29-21-105. Although the Petitioner argues the convicting court had all relevant records for his sentence, he is attempting to correct a void sentence, which can be addressed at any time by the convicting court, justifying his filing there.
3. The Petitioner’s sentence remains unexpired.
4. The Court previously determined that the 1982 Sentencing Act applies to the Petitioner’s sentence.
5. The Petitioner claims he received the trial court's order on September 22, 2003, asserting his notice of appeal is timely. However, evidence shows he was notified of the trial court's order on July 21 and September 18, 2003. The Petitioner did not request a waiver for the timely filing of the notice of appeal, and the Court finds no justification for excusing the lack of timely filing. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, and costs are assessed to the State.
