State v. Victor Reynolds

• Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: July 18, 1997
• Docket: 02C01-9607-CR-00244
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON FILED JULY 1997 SESSION July 18, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk VICTOR REYNOLDS, ) ) NO. 02C01-9607-CR-00244 Appellant, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) Hon. W. Fred Axley, Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conviction) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

VICTOR REYNOLDS, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP Cold Creek Correctional Facility Attorney General and Reporter P.O. Box 1000 Henning, TN 38041-1000 GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

WILLIAM L. GIBBONS District Attorney General

ALANDA HORNE Assistant District Attorney General Criminal Justice Complex, Suite 301 201 Poplar Avenue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINION FILED:

AFFIRMED - RULE 20 ORDER

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE ORDER

The petitioner, Victor Reynolds, appeals the order of the Criminal Court of

Shelby County dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court

dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing on the basis that the petition

was barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, the trial court found that

previous petitions for post-conviction relief had been filed and dismissed, and

petitioner presented no new issues “which would be properly addressed” in a post-

conviction petition. On appeal, petitioner presents the following issue for our review:

“The Criminal Court violated petitioner’s due process rights in dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing based on the statute of limitations where the petitioner has never had the opportunity to show that prior convictions used to determine his habitual criminal status are void because he was not aware of his right against self-incrimination when he pled guilty to the charges.”

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Petitioner’s claim is based on the alleged invalidity of two (2) 1976 guilty

pleas which were subsequently used as grounds for an habitual criminal conviction.

He argues that the guilty pleas are void, and as a result, the habitual criminal

conviction based on the prior guilty pleas is void as well.

This issue has been previously determined on appeal. See Victor Reynolds

v. State, C.C.A. No. 84 (Tenn. Crim. App. filed September 27, 1989, at Jackson).

Petitioner may not again seek relief on this ground. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-

206(h) (Supp. 1996).

Furthermore, post-conviction relief is barred by the statute of limitations.

Petitioner complains of guilty pleas which were entered in 1976. The statute of

limitations for post-conviction relief ran on July 1, 1989. Abston v. State, 749

S.W.2d 487 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). There are no allegations in the petition or

otherwise which would appropriately toll the statute. See Burford v. State, 845

S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(b) (Supp. 1996).

Petitioner claims that the trial court erred in not conducting an evidentiary

hearing on the petition. If it appears on the face of the petition, any exhibits or prior

2 proceedings in the case that the petition was not filed within the statute of limitations

or that a prior petition attacking the conviction was resolved on the merits, the trial

court may summarily dismiss the petition. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(b) (Supp.

1996).

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20 of the

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

CONCUR:

JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE