State v. Weddington
This text of State v. Weddington (State v. Weddington) 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 KNOXVILLE FILED MAY 1998 SESSION June 3, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk RODERICK L. WEDDINGTON, ) ) NO. 03C01-9607-CR-00258 Appellant, ) ) HAMILTON COUNTY No. 211036 VS. ) ) HON. DOUGLAS A. MEYER, STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (AFFIRMED - Rule 20)
ORDER
Appellant, Roderick L. Weddington, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal
Court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm the
dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
On June 17, 1994, appellant entered a guilty plea to two (2) counts of
aggravated robbery. On May 30, 1996, he filed a petition for post-conviction relief
alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and an involuntary guilty plea. The trial
court dismissed the petition summarily as being outside the one-year statute of
limitations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202. It is this dismissal that is the
subject of this appeal.
The petition is governed by the Post-Conviction Procedure Act of 1995 since
it was filed after May 10, 1995. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 Compiler’s
Notes. A petition for post-conviction relief must be filed within one (1) year of the
date on which the judgment became final. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(a). The
judgments of conviction became final on June 17, 1994, based upon the guilty plea
and waiver of appeal. Nevertheless, appellant had until May 10, 1996, to file a
petition for post-conviction relief. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 Compiler’s Notes.
The petition does not allege any exceptions to the statute of limitations as set forth
in Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(b). Since the petition was filed after May 10, 1996,
it is barred by the statute of limitations. See Jason L. Jennings v. State, C.C.A. No.
01C01-9703-CR-00106, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed April 1, 1998, at Nashville); Albert Holston v. State, C.C.A. No. 02C01-9609-CR-00298, Shelby
County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed July 28, 1997, at Jackson); Teresa King v. State,
C.C.A. No. 01C01-9610-CR-00449, Davidson County (Tenn. Crim. App. filed
January 16, 1997, at Nashville), perm. app. denied (Tenn. May 12, 1997).
For this reason, we are unable to find any error in the proceedings below.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed
in accordance with Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Since the
record reflects that the appellant is indigent, costs of this proceeding shall be
assessed to the state.
ENTER:
________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
________________________________ CURWOOD WITT, 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. Weddington, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-weddington-tenncrimapp-1994.