State v. David Sharp

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: April 22, 1999
• Docket: 02C01-9807-CR-00225
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 1999 SESSION FILED April 22, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk DAVID HOLLIS SHARP, ) ) C.C.A. No. 02C01-9807-CR-00225 Appellant, ) ) Shelby County V. ) ) Honorable James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction) ) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

DAVID HOLLIS SHARP, Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP Cold Creek Correctional Facility Attorney General & Reporter P.O. Box 1000 Henning, TN 38014-1000 CLINTON J. MORGAN Counsel for the State 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General Criminal Justice Center 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, Judge OPINION

The petitioner, David Hollis Sharp, appeals from a judgment of the Shelby

County Criminal Court dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. We

AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

On June 6, 1979, the petitioner was convicted of three counts of first

degree burglary and two counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct.

This Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction on direct appeal. See State v.

Sharp, 604 S.W.2d 886 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980). The Tennessee Supreme

Court denied permission to appeal on July 28, 1980.

On May 22, 1998, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction

relief challenging his convictions of first degree criminal sexual conduct. The

petitioner alleges (1) that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial,

(2) that criminal sexual conduct was not a “substantive criminal offense”

proscribed by the Tennessee Code, (3) that the trial court erred in failing to

instruct the jury as to lesser included offenses, and (4) that the indictments were

defective for failing to allege the requisite mens rea.

Finding the petition barred by the statute of limitation, the trial court

dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. See Donehue v. State,

963 S.W.2d 766, 767-68 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (A trial court may dismiss a

petition for post-conviction relief filed after the applicable statute of limitations

without an evidentiary hearing.).

The evidence does not preponderate against the findings of the trial court,

and we find no error of law mandating reversal. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 20

of the Court of Criminal Appeals, we AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

-2- _____________________________ JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

_____________________________ JOE G. RILEY, Judge

-3-