Sanders v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: September 18, 1997
• Docket: 03C01-9610-CR-00356
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE FILED AUGUST 1997 SESSION September 18, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

ANTHONY E. SANDERS, ) ) C.C.A. No. 03C01-9610-CR-00356 Appellant, ) ) Knox County V. ) ) Honorable Ray L. Jenkins, Judge ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction) ) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Anthony E. Sanders, Pro Se Charles W. Burson P.O. Box 2000 Attorney General & Reporter Wartburg, TN 37887 Peter M. Coughlan Assistant Attorney General Criminal Justice Division 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Randall E. Nichols District Attorney General City-County Building Knoxville, TN 37902

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge OPINION

The appellant, Anthony E. Sanders, pled guilty to aggravated assault and

felony escape in January 1992. In April 1996, he filed two post-conviction relief

petitions. The trial court, after preliminary consideration, ruled that both petitions

were time-barred. He appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petitions.1 He

alleges that this Court's holding in State v. Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267

(Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, June 20, 1996) renders the indictment brought

against him for felony escape fatally defective.

The appellant's most recent conviction became final in 1992. 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 1995. Therefore, both petitions are barred by the statute of limitations.

We find appellant's pro se brief artfully drafted, and we understand his

allegations. We, however, find no error of law mandating reversal of the trial

court's determinations. Pursuant to Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App., Rule 20, we

AFFIRM.

1 Th e ap pellan t relies on an o pinion of this C ourt, Carte r v. Sta te, No. 03C01-9509-CC-00270 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, July 11, 1996), to support his assertion that his petitions are not time-barred. W e note that the Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal in Carter be cau se o f the disa gre em en t ov er its h oldin g a m on g d iffere nt p an els of th is Co urt a nd ha s sin ce re ve rsed tha t ruling, o rde ring tha t the 19 95 am en dm en t to th e P ost- Co nv iction Pro ced ure Act did not re vive any c laim s tha t had prev iously b een time -barre d. Carte r v. Sta te, No. 03-S-01-9612-CR-00117 (Tenn., Sept. 8, 1997).

-2- ____________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

_________________________ GARY R. WADE, Judge

_________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, Judge

-3-