State v. Richard Young

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJanuary 30, 1998
Docket02C01-9703-CR-00130
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Richard Young (State v. Richard Young) 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.

Bluebook
State v. Richard Young, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY 1998 SESSION FILED January 30, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr. RICHARD LEE YOUNG, ) Appellate C ourt Clerk ) NO. 02C01-9703-CR-00130 Appellant, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CAROLYN WADE ) BLACKETT, JUDGE ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

RICHARD LEE YOUNG, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP Register Number 101867 Attorney General and Reporter Cold Creek Correctional Facility P.O. Box 1000 SARAH M. BRANCH Henning, TN 38041-1000 Assistant Attorney General Cordell Hull Building, 2nd Floor 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General

RHEA CLIFT Assistant District Attorney General 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301 Memphis, TN 38103-1947

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE OPINION

The petitioner, Richard Lee Young, appeals the order of the Criminal

Court of Shelby County dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief.

Petitioner alleged that his indictment for first degree murder was void for failure

to state the appropriate mens rea. The trial court dismissed the petition without

an evidentiary hearing finding the petition was barred by the statute of limitations.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

I.

In November 1983, the petitioner pled guilty to first degree murder,

aggravated kidnapping and two (2) counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He

received an effective sentence of life imprisonment plus ten (10) years. On

December 11, 1996, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging

his indictment for first degree murder was fatally defective and, therefore, his

conviction was void. The trial court dismissed the petition holding it was barred

by the statute of limitations. Petitioner now appeals the dismissal of his petition

for post-conviction relief.

II.

This case is controlled by the new Post-Conviction Procedure Act, Tenn.

Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq., as the petition for relief was filed after May 10,

1995.

Prior to the adoption of the recent Post-Conviction Procedure Act, such

petitions had to be filed within three (3) years of the date of the final action of the

highest state appellate court to which an appeal was taken. Tenn. Code Ann. §

40-30-102 (repealed by 1995 Tenn. Pub. Act 207 § 1). The statute of limitations

normally begins to run on the date of a guilty plea when an appeal is waived.

Warren v. State, 833 S.W.2d 101, 102 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992). Petitioner's

guilty plea was entered in November 1983. However, as a result of this Court's

2 decision in Abston v. State, 749 S.W.2d 487, 488 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988), the

statute for the petitioner began to run July 1, 1986, and expired July 1, 1989.

Consequently, the petition for post-conviction relief is barred by the statute of

limitations. The limitations period was not revived by the new Post-Conviction

Procedure Act. See Carter v. State, ___S.W.2d___ (Tenn. 1997).

III.

Furthermore, this petitioner has filed a previous petition for post-conviction

relief. The Post-Conviction Procedure Act contemplates the filing of only one

petition for post-conviction relief. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(c). A petitioner

may file to re-open the petition under limited circumstances. Tenn. Code Ann. §

40-30-217(a). However, petitioner alleges none of the recognized grounds to

justify such a motion.

IV.

Finally, we address petitioner's allegation that the indictment was void for

failing to allege the proper mens rea. The indictment alleged that petitioner "did

unlawfully, feloniously, wilfully, deliberately, maliciously and premeditatedly"

murder the victim. The indictment is sufficient. See Hill v. State, ___S.W.2d___

(Tenn. 1997).

3 __________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

______________________________ 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

Abston v. State
749 S.W.2d 487 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1988)
Warren v. State
833 S.W.2d 101 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Richard Young, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-richard-young-tenncrimapp-1998.