Jessie James House v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: June 26, 1997
• Docket: 01C01-9607-CR-00309
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED MAY 1997 SESSION June 26, 1997

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk JESSIE JAMES HOUSE, ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9607-CR-00309 Appellant, ) ) Davidson County V. ) ) Honorable Ann Lacy Johns, Judge ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction) ) Appellee.

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Jessie James House, Pro Se Charles W. Burson R.M.S.I. Unit 6-B-119 Attorney General & Reporter 7475 Cockrill Bend Ind. Rd. Nashville, TN 37209-1010 Daryl J. Brand Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Victor S. (Torry) Johnson III District Attorney General

Roger D. Moore Asst. Dist. Attorney General Washington Square 222 2nd Avenue North, Suite 500 Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

OPINION The appellant, Jessie James House, was convicted in 1987 of robbery

accomplished by use of a deadly weapon. In 1995 he filed a petition for post-

conviction relief, approximately seven years after his conviction became final.

The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was barred by the

statute of limitations.

The appellant's conviction became final in August 1988. At that time the

law allowed three years to file a petition for post-conviction relief. Tenn. Code

Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990). The appellant's time period for filing his petition

expired in August 1991. Therefore, his petition is time barred.1

Accordingly, we find no error of law mandating reversal. The trial court's

dismissal of the appellant's petition is affirmed in accordance with Tenn. R. Ct.

Crim. App., Rule 20.

__________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

__________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

__________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

1 Notwithstanding the untimeliness of the appellant's petition, we reviewed his issues. The issues have been waived or simply lack merit. There is some confusion about a previous post-conviction case which attacked a 1979 conviction and is apparently referred to in the trial court’s order dismissing this petition. Nonetheless, this error does not affect the statute of lim itations issue .

-2-