JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE.
The petitioner, James William Taylor, also known as Lutfi Shafq Talal, was convicted in the Williamson County Circuit Court of felony murder, robbery, and second degree burglary. He was subsequently sentenced to consecutive sentences of life, fifteen years, and fifteen years for the respective convictions. In this appeal, the petitioner challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for nunc pro tunc to consolidate prior offenses. Because such an order is not subject to an appeal as of right under Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss the petitioner's appeal.
The facts underlying the petitioner's convictions were summarized by this court on direct appeal as follows:
State v. James Taylor, No. 89-93-III (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 25, 1990), reh'g denied (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, July 19, 1990), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Oct. 8, 1990).
The petitioner was convicted of felony murder, robbery, and second degree burglary on August 19, 1988, after a jury trial in Williamson County. Id. As a result of the convictions, the petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction, fifteen years for the second degree burglary conviction, and fifteen years for the robbery conviction. Id. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. Id. On direct appeal, the petitioner raised multiple issues for review. Id. Following a thorough review by a panel of this court, the petitioner's convictions and sentences were affirmed. Id.
Following the denial of a petition to rehear and permission to appeal, the petitioner sought post-conviction relief. James William Taylor v. State, No. 01C01-9809-CC-00384 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 19, 2000), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Sept. 25, 2000). The petitioner argued that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the State withheld exculpatory evidence. The post-conviction court denied relief, and a panel of this court upheld the denial on appeal. Id.
The petitioner subsequently filed several unsuccessful petitions seeking habeas corpus relief. See, e.g., James W. Taylor A.K.A. Lutfi S. Talal v. Wayne Brandon, No. M20030-2235-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 14, 2004), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Mar. 21, 2005); Lutfi Shafq Talal a/k/a James William Taylor v. State, No. M20050-2964-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 23, 2006), perm. app. granted (Tenn., Nov. 13, 2006). However, in his fourth petition filed on November 2, 2005, the petitioner claimed that the trial court "failed to render a final sentencing judgment regarding his first degree murder conviction." Lutfi Shafq Talal a/k/a James William Taylor v. State, No. M2005-02964-CCA-R3-HC. Following the denial of relief by this court, the Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in the case. The court determined:
Lufti Shafq Talal a/k/a James William Taylor v. State, No. M2005-02964-SC-R11-HC. On remand, the trial court entered a judgment order on Count Three in the case. James William Taylor a/k/a Lutfi Shafq Talal v. State, No. M2007-01405-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Apr. 11, 2008), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Aug. 25, 2008).
Subsequently, on May 11, 2009, the petitioner filed a "Motion Nunc Pro Tunc" in the Williamson County Circuit Court. The petitioner requested that the trial court rule on his motion to consolidate offenses, which had been filed on January 29, 1988, prior to the jury trial. The petitioner sought the issuance of a nunc pro tunc order from the trial court. The trial court denied the order on September 15, 2009. The petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, the petitioner, acting pro se, argues that the trial court erred in denying the motion for nunc pro tunc order because there is no proof that the petitioner "received and concealed stolen items at different times" so the offenses should have been consolidated prior to trial. The State argues that the petitioner's appeal should be dismissed because Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure does not allow an appeal from the trial court's order in this particular situation.
Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure sets out the circumstances when a petitioner has an appeal as of right. Rule 3(b) states:
The order in this case does not fit within any of the circumstances enumerated above. As such, the judgment denying the petitioner's motion is not covered by Rule 3; therefore, the petitioner does not have an appeal as of right from the denial. This court has previously dismissed an appeal from a trial court's denial of a motion for nunc pro tunc order based on Rule 3(b). Xavier Todd v. State, No. W2005-02483-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Sept. 27, 2006), perm. app. denied (Tenn., Jan. 22, 2007); State v. Anthony Layne, No. M2004-01753-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, May 13, 2005). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petitioner's appeal.