Background
Annesha Jackson filed a pro se notice of appeal on June 23, 2025, after the post-conviction court orally denied relief but before it entered its written order on July 11, 2025. Her filing included correspondence asking whether her appointed attorney, Carlos Maldanado, had filed a notice of appeal. Maldanado had not done so and maintained that he was not appointed for the appeal, although the record showed that he had neither sought nor received permission to withdraw when Jackson filed her pro se notice.
After multiple substitutions of appointed counsel and a stay concerning Jackson’s representation, Anthony Bridgeforth, Jr., filed her appellate brief in June 2026. No attorney had filed a notice of appeal on Jackson’s behalf. When the State moved to dismiss, Jackson argued through counsel that she believed her original post-conviction counsel’s services had ended. Counsel alternatively submitted a new notice of appeal on June 25, 2026, more than ten months after the August 11, 2025 deadline.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeals held that Jackson’s pro se notice was a nullity because she remained represented by appointed counsel when she filed it. Under Tennessee law and court rules, appointed trial counsel continues representing an indigent defendant through the first-tier appeal unless permitted to withdraw. Because Maldanado had not been allowed to withdraw, Jackson’s pro se filing did not invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.
The court also held that counsel’s June 2026 notice did not cure the defect. Although Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) allows the timely-filing requirement in criminal cases to be waived in the interest of justice, waiver is not automatic. Counsel submitted the notice more than ten months late without filing a motion requesting waiver or supplying the information relevant to that determination. The court therefore granted the State’s motion and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A represented post-conviction petitioner’s pro se notice of appeal is a nullity when appointed counsel has not been permitted to withdraw.
- Appointed counsel remains responsible through the first-tier appeal unless a court authorizes withdrawal.
- An attorney seeking acceptance of an untimely notice should move for waiver under Rule 4(a) and address the issues presented, the reason for and length of the delay, and other relevant circumstances.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that uncertainty about appointed counsel’s role can have case-ending consequences. A petitioner’s attempt to preserve appellate rights personally will not substitute for counsel’s filing while the representation remains formally in effect.
It also shows that merely submitting a late notice is insufficient even when Rule 4(a) permits waiver in the interest of justice. Counsel must affirmatively request waiver and provide a basis for the appellate court to exercise that discretion.