Rodriquez v. State

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE FILED NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION December 23, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

ABEL RODRIQUEZ, JR., ) ) APPELLANT, ) ) No. 03-C-01-9612-CR-00463 ) ) Greene County v. ) ) James E. Beckner, Judge ) ) (Post-Conviction Relief) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) APPELLEE, )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Abel Rodriquez, Jr., Pro Se John Knox Walkup Northeast Correctional Center Attorney General & Reporter P.O. Box 500 500 Charlotte Avenue Mountain City, TN 37653-0500 Nashville, TN 37243-0497

Timothy F. Behan Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

C. Berkley Bell District Attorney General 109 South Main Street Greeneville, TN 37743

OPINION FILED:____________________________________

AFFIRMED

Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge OPINION

The appellant, Abel Rodriquez, Jr. (petitioner), appeals as of right from a judgment

of the trial court summarily dismissing his action for post-conviction relief. The trial court

found the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner contends the time

should be calculated from the time this court’s opinion in State v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr.,

Wayne County No. 01-C-01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996),

was filed -- not from the date of his conviction. He argues Hill created new law, and the

indictment in his case, like the indictment in Hill, was void because it did not allege the

requisite mens rea.

The trial court properly found the statute of limitations barred this action. Moreover,

the indictment in this case was adequate. It mirrors the indictment in Hill. The supreme

court recently held the indictment in Hill passed constitutional, statutory, and common law

muster. State v. Hill, _____ S.W.2d _____ (Tenn. 1997) (opinion filed in Nashville on

November 3, 1997).

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the

law governing the issue presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the

judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

_____________________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

______________________________________ CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE