Donnie Carpenter v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 17, 1997
• Docket: 01C01-9703-CC-00114
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION December 17, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk DONNIE CARPENTER, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9703-CC-00114 Appellant, ) ) MAURY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JAMES L. WEATHERFORD, STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-conviction)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

SHARA FLACY JOHN KNOX WALKUP Public Defender Attorney General & Reporter

WILLIAM C. BRIGHT CLINTON J. MORGAN Asst. Public Defender Counsel for the State P.O. Box 1208 450 James Robertson Pkwy. Pulaski, TN 38478 Nashville, TN 37243-0493

MIKE BOTTOMS District Attorney General

ROBERT C. SANDERS Asst. District Attorney General P.O. Box 1619 Columbia, TN 38401

OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge OPINION

The petitioner pled guilty to first-degree murder on September 23, 1986.

He received a sentence of life imprisonment. On August 21, 1991, he filed a petition for

post-conviction relief. Counsel was appointed and an amended petition was filed on

November 20, 1996. The petition was dismissed the following day because it was filed

outside the statute of limitations. The petitioner now appeals and argues that the post-

conviction court erred when it dismissed his petition. We disagree and affirm the

judgment of the court below.

In his post-conviction petition, the petitioner alleges that his trial counsel

was ineffective and that his guilty plea was not entered freely and voluntarily. He alleged

in his petition that his counsel told him he would be out of prison in six years when in

actuality, he would have to serve seventeen years before becoming eligible for parole.

He further alleged that because he only has a seventh grade education, he was unaware

that he had to bring these complaints before the court within three years of his conviction

becoming final. Thus, he argues that his petition should not be barred for falling outside

the statute of limitations.

At the time the petitioner was convicted, he had three years from the date

his conviction became final to file his post-conviction petition. T.C.A. § 40-30-102

(1990).1 His petition was filed nearly five years after he pled guilty; thus he is clearly

outside the limitations period. However, the petitioner urges this Court to dispense with

the timing requirement because the petitioner was ill-educated and was unable to hire an

attorney to help him understand the legal process. This Court has previously held that

1 As of M ay 10, 199 5, the tim ing for filing su ch a pe tition was re duced to one yea r from the date the c onvic tion b eca me final.

2 ignorance of the statute of limitations is not an excuse for failing to timely file a post-

conviction petition. Brown v. State, 928 S.W.2d 453, 456 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). We

have also held that the statute of limitations is not affected by when a petitioner “learns”

that his constitutional rights might have been violated. Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d

619, 625 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). As this Court has previously stated,

The Post-Conviction Procedure Act is not a constitutionally mandated procedure and this Court has repeatedly held that the legislature could properly impose limitations upon the time in which the cause of action arising under the act must be brought. There is nothing in the act to indicate that the legislature intended for this provision to apply only to certain petitioners. For this Court to now attempt to carve exceptions would defeat the purpose of the act. We are not prepared to hold that the facts alleged by the petitioner tolled the running of the three year limitation.

Melvin Douglas Boyle v. State, No, 02C01-9201-CC-00003, Fayette County (Tenn. Crim.

App. filed Nov. 18, 1992, at Jackson).

Thus, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition due to its having

been filed outside the statute of limitations.

_________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge

______________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, Judge

3 4