IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
FILED
October 18, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
JOHN L. GOODWIN, III, ) Appellate Court Clerk
) FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant, )
) FILED: OCTOBER 18, 1999
v. )
) SUMNER COUNTY
HENDERSONVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT )
DAVID L. KEY, Police Chief, and ) HON. TOM E. GRAY, JUDGE
R. J. THOMPSON, Mayor, )
) NO. 01-S-01-9804-CH-00077
Appellees. )
For Appellant: For Appellee:
JOHN L. GOODWIN, III JOHN R. BRADLEY
Pro se Hendersonville, TN
OPINION
REVERSED AND REMANDED BIRCH, J.
John L. Goodwin, III, applied for permission to appeal
pursuant to Tenn. R. App. P. 11. We accepted the case in order to
consider two questions:
1. Is a convicted felon a "citizen"
within the meaning of the Public
Records Act and thereby entitled to
utilize its provisions?
2. Did Goodwin file his notice of
appeal in a timely fashion?
After completely examining the record and thoroughly
considering the contentions of the parties, we conclude that both
questions must be answered in the affirmative.
Accordingly, and for the reasons herein stated, we remand
the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
I
On December 12, 1989, Goodwin was convicted of
second-degree burglary and assault with intent to commit rape.
Instead of perfecting a direct appeal, he filed a petition for
post-conviction relief in which he alleged, among other things,
that he had been denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.
The trial court denied post-conviction relief. However, the Court
2
of Criminal Appeals held that Goodwin should have the right to
pursue a new trial and to perfect a delayed appeal if necessary.
Goodwin did nothing.
On April 12, 1995, Goodwin, an incarcerated pro se
litigant, filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Sumner County
against certain members of the Hendersonville Police Department and
the mayor of Hendersonville. He alleged that the respondents had
denied him access to certain information during the above-described
1989 trial. He asserted a right under the Public Records Act1 to
access the files containing the allegedly withheld information.
The trial court found that Goodwin was without standing
to seek relief under the Public Records Act because he had been
rendered infamous as a result of the felony convictions in 1989.
Goodwin appealed this ruling. The Court of Appeals found Goodwin's
notice of appeal to have been untimely filed and did not address
the issue concerning his threshold right under the Public Records
Act for access to the files he requested.
Addressing the issue, the Public Records Act is by its
terms available for use by "citizens." In Cole v. Campbell, 968
S.W.2d 274 (Tenn. 1998), we held that a convicted felon is a
"citizen" for purposes of the Public Records Act and would,
thereby, have standing to utilize its provisions. Thus, under
1
Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 10-7-503, -504, and -505 (1992 & Supp.
1998).
3
Cole, Goodwin has standing to utilize the provisions of the Public
Records Act.
II
As to the issue of timeliness, we find that Goodwin's
notice of appeal was timely filed. On August 7, 1995, Goodwin
mailed his notice of appeal and designation of the appellate record
to the trial court clerk. It was not received and filed until
August 11, 1995, which was 31 days after the entry of the trial
court's final order.
Tennessee Rule Appellate Procedure 4(a) governs the
filing of appeal notices at the trial court level. The rule
requires that the notice of appeal be filed with and received by
the trial court clerk within 30 days after the entry of the
judgment. A similar provision for the filing of papers in the
appellate court is found at Tenn. R. App. P. 20(a). Rule 4(a) also
provides “[a]ny party may serve notice of entry of an appealable
judgment in the manner provided in Rule 20 for the service of
papers.” In 1993 this Court amended Tenn. R. App. P. 20 to provide
that if papers are
prepared by or on behalf of a pro se
litigant incarcerated in a
correctional facility, filing should
be timely if the papers are
delivered to the appropriate
individual at the correctional
facility within the time fixed for
filing.
4
Rule 4(a) was inadvertently left unchanged. Here, Goodwin
delivered the notice of appeal to the appropriate person at the
correctional facility well within the time fixed for filing. At
that point, he no longer had effective control over any part of the
process. Thus, we find his notice of appeal to have been timely
filed because he delivered it to prison officials well within the
period allowed, complying thereby with Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a).
Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court2 to
supervise and monitor the delivery of the requested information as
may be necessary and for other proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
Costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellees.
______________________________
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., Justice
Concur:
Anderson, C.J.
Drowota, Holder, Barker, JJ.
2
We had intended initially to dispose of this matter by entry
of a memorandum order. However, on July 27, 1998, the respondents
filed a motion averring that they had provided Goodwin with the
information he had sought, suggesting thereby that the issues were
moot. Goodwin, responding to the State's motion, claims that the
respondents have not provided him with the information he sought.
Thus, we overruled the motion to dismiss by order entered August
10, 1998.
5