State v. Marvin Matthews

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

MARVIN ANTHONY MATTHEWS, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9806-CR-00195 ) vs.

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) SHELBY COUNTY ) ) No. P-19924 FILED ) October 15, 1998 Respondent. ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the

judgment of the trial court by order rather than formal opinion. See Rule 20, Rules of

the Court of Criminal Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of

the petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner pled guilty to petit

larceny in 1975 and was sentenced to six months imprisonment. No appeal was taken.

On May 13, 1998, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction attacking the validity

of this conviction and sentence. Finding that the petitioner’s sentence has expired, the

trial court denied relief.1

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a), 2 a person in custody under a sentence

of a court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief within one year of the date

of the final action of the highest state appellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if

no appeal is taken, within one year of the date on which judgment became final. The

Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides several limited exceptions to the one-year

statute of limitations, however none of them are applicable to the present case. See §

40-30-202(b). The petition in this case was filed well beyond the applicable statute of

1 On a ppe al , the state note s tha t petitio ners who se s ente nce s hav e exp ired m ay still at tack their convictions if there is a possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the cha llenged c onvictions . See e.g. Ellison v. Sta te, 549 S.W.2d 691, 694 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976). The petitioner in this case has been declared an habitual criminal. Regardless, the statute of limitations bars this petition.

2 Since the petition in this case was filed after May 10, 1995, it is therefore governed by the provision s of the 1 995 Po st-Con viction Pro cedure Act. See Comp iler’s Notes, T.C.A. § 40-30-201 (1997). limitations, and is, therefore, untimely. 3

For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the trial court did not err

in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20,

Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

__________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

__________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

__________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

3 The pe tition would als o be bar red und er the pre vious thre e year statu te of limitation s. See T.C.A . § 40-30 -102 (19 90) (rep ealed); Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W .2d 619 ( Tenn . Crim. A pp.), perm . to app. denied, (Tenn. 1994).