James Brown v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: December 1, 2010
• Docket: 01C01-9606-CC-00232
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED MAY SESSION, 1997 December 3, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson JAME S A. BR OW N, JR., ) Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9606-CC-00232 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) DICKSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. ROBERT E. BURCH. JUDGE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) and LEONARD W. MARTIN, JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post Conviction - Sentencing)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

JAMES A. BROWN, JR. Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP Middle Tennessee Reception Center Attorney General and Reporter 7177 Cockrill Bend-Industrial Rd. Nashville, TN 37209-1005 CLINTON J. MORGAN Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243

DAN ALSOBROOKS District Attorney General

BOB WILSON Assistant District Attorney P. O. Box 580 Charlotte, TN 37036

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20

JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE OPINION In this appe al of the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition

Appe llant, Jam es A. B rown, Jr., ask s this C ourt to r eview the validity of h is

conviction entered upon his pleas of guilty on February 20, 1991. Appellant

pleaded guilty to nine (9 ) county o f felony theft and one (1) count of misdemeanor

theft. As part of the plea agreement Appellant received sentences totaling 32

years with eight years to be served in community corrections and the balance on

probation. Appellant apparently performed in a satisfactory manner while on

comm unity corrections and he was placed on probation sooner than expected.

Howeve r, on June 19, 1995, Appellant’s probation was revoked and he was

placed in the De partme nt of Corre ction.

Although acknowledging his post-c onvictio n petition was time-barred under

the three year statute of limitations in effect when his conviction b ecam e final,

Appellant argues that the enactment on May 10 , 1995, of the new one year

statute of limitations for post-conviction petitions creates a new one year period

in which he may file for p ost-con viction relief. Our State Supreme Court has only

recen tly resolved this issue a dversely to Appella nt’s position . Carter v. State,

Monroe Co., No. 03-S-01-9612-CR-00117 (Tenn. S. Ct. September 8, 1997, at

Knoxville). Thus the petition for post-conviction relief was properly dismissed.

In addition, following the revocation of his probation on June 10, 1995,

Appellant moved the trial cour t pursua nt to Ten n. R. Crim . P. 35 to reduce h is

sentence. Appellant offered no evidence as to why his agreed to sentence

shou ld be redu ced, he merely s tated he felt it was too harsh. The motion for

-2- sentence reduction was denied. Under the circum stance s we se e no rea son to

disturb this discretionary decision of the trial judge.

Accordingly, the jud gme nt of the trial cou rt is affirm ed in a ll respects

pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

-3-