Perry v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Perry

    No. W2023-01557-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jul. 9, 2024)

    Defendant then sought post-conviction relief by filing a pro se petition. Perry v. State, No. W2006-02236-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL 2483524, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 19, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 27, 2008). Counsel was appointed and an amended petition was filed seeking a delayed appeal on the basis that Defendant was deprived a "second-tier appellate review." Id.

  2. Abdur'Rahman v. State

    648 S.W.3d 178 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020)   Cited 9 times

    However, Joseph Matthew Maka simply stands for the proposition that the trial court loses jurisdiction to amend or vacate an agreed order granting post-conviction relief once it becomes final. Id. at *2 (citing State v. Peele , 58 S.W.3d 701, 705-06 (Tenn. 2001) ); see alsoAnthony E. Perry v. State , No. W2006-02236-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL 2483524, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 19, 2008) (relying on Joseph Matthew Maka in holding that the post-conviction court lost jurisdiction to vacate its order denying relief after it became final), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Oct. 27, 2008). Although the Joseph Matthew Maka court vacated the post-conviction court's subsequent order denying relief and reinstated the earlier agreed order, 2004 WL 2290493, at *3, the court did not specifically address the propriety of the agreed order itself. Moreover, we would note that, unlike this case, the agreed order in Joseph Matthew Maka did not state that the defendant was waiving all claims or that the post-conviction court was amending an otherwise final judgment.