State v. Estenico Slayton
This text of State v. Estenico Slayton (State v. Estenico Slayton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
ESTENICO SLAYTON, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9703-CC-00117 ) vs. ) DYER COUNTY
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) No. C94-92 ) FILED Respondent. ) July 1, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the
judgment in the above-captioned cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals. It appears the petitioner was sentenced on his guilty plea on
January 6, 1995. The petitioner did not take a direct appeal, and did not file his petition
for post-conviction relief until July 11, 1996. The petitioner filed an amended petition,
by and through counsel, on September 6, 1996. The state filed an answer on
September 10, 1996, and an amended answer on October 7, 1996. In its amended
answer, the state claimed the petition was barred by the statute of limitation. The
petitioner subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the amended answer claiming the
state waived the statute of limitation defense by not raising it in the initial answer. The
trial court ultimately dismissed the petition because it was filed outside the statute of
limitation.
Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a) (1996 supp.), a petitioner must petition
for post-conviction relief within one year of the date the judgment became final. The
Compiler’s Notes to T.C.A. § 40-30-201(1996 supp.) state that the 1995 Post-
Conviction Act governs all petitions for post-conviction relief filed after May 10, 1995.
Moreover, the Compiler’s Notes indicate that “any person having ground for relief
recognized under this part shall have at least one (1) year from May 10, 1995, to file a
petition or a motion to reopen a petition under this part.” Under T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b) (1996 supp.), a court does not have jurisdiction to consider a petition filed outside the
one year statute of limitation unless one of three limited exceptions applies.
In the present case, the petitioner filed his petition on July 11, 1996.
Accordingly, the petition is governed by the 1995 Post-Conviction Act. The petition in
this case, however, was filed outside the statute of limitation set forth in T.C.A. § 40-30-
202(a), which deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Moreover,
the petitioner has failed to show that any of his claims fall within one of the exceptions
set forth in T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the state’s motion is granted, and,
pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed. Costs of the appeal shall be assessed against the petitioner.
Enter, this the ___ day of June, 1997.
______________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
______________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Estenico Slayton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-estenico-slayton-tenncrimapp-1996.