Shelton v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: March 24, 1998
• Docket: 03C01-9707-CR-00236
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE FILED FEBRUARY SESS ION, 1998 March 24, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

CHARLES SHELTON, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9707-CR-00236 ) Appe llant, ) ) GREENE COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON. JAMES E. BECKNER, JUDGE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) (POST-C ONVIC TION)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

CHAR LES S HEL TON , pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP #1170 31, N.E .C.C. Attorney General & Reporter P.O. Box 5000 Mountain City, TN 37683-5000 ELLEN H. POLLACK Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243

C. BERKELEY BELL, JR. District Attorn ey Ge neral Greene County O ffice Comp lex 113-J West Church Street Greeneville, TN 37745

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE OPINION The Petitioner, Charles Shelton, appeals the order of the Greene Coun ty

Criminal Court dismissing his pro se petition for post-con viction relief. The trial court

found that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations. In this appeal,

Petitioner raises numerous issues which can collectively be summarized as

challenging the trial court’s ruling that the petition for post-conviction relief is time-

barred. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of post-

conviction relief.

Petitioner pled guilty on June 19, 1987 to various sexual crimes and was

convicted of those crimes. Petitioner did not appeal any of the convic tions.

Petition er’s convictions are controlled by a three-year statute of limitations under

Tennessee Code Annotated section 4 0-30-102 (rep ealed 1995 ). He therefore

needed to file his petition by June 19, 1990 in order to toll the running of the statute.

Howeve r, Petition er did not file a petition for post-conviction relief until May 16, 1997,

thus ba rring any c laims he might ha ve had.

Furthermore, Petitioner’s petition is not revived by the new Post-Conviction

Procedu re Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq. The Tennessee

Supreme court recently held the following:

[The new Act] is not intended to revive claims that were barred by the previous statute of limitations. We agree with the view that the statute was intended to restrict the time and opportunity to seek post-conviction relief. Clearly, this purpose is not served by a statutory construction that allows additional time and opportunity for petitioners whose claims are already barred by the prior statute of limitations.

-2- Carter v. State, 952 S.W.2d 417, 420 (T enn. 1997 ). Therefore, “petitioners for whom

the statute of limitations expired prior to the effective date of the new Act, i.e., May

10, 1995, do not have an additional year in which to file petitions for post-conviction

relief.” Id. at 418. Ev en if arguendo the ne w Act d id gran t one a ddition al year in

which to file, P etitioner wa ited two ye ars befo re first filing his pe tition.

According ly, we co nclud e that th e trial co urt corr ectly found that the petition

was barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore, a summary dismissal of the

petition was app ropriate. Tenn . Code An n. § 40-30-20 6(b).

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

___________________________________ WILLIAM B. ACREE, JR., Special Judge

-3-