State vs.Carl London

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: July 23, 1998
• Docket: 01C01-9710-CR-00458
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE FILED JULY 1998 SESSION July 23, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk CARL LONDON, ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9710-CR-00458 Appellant, ) ) Davidson County V. ) ) Honorable J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conviction) Appellee. ) )

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

Carl London, Pro Se John Knox Walkup TDOC # 122534 Attorney General & Reporter Lake County Regional Correctional Facility Elizabeth B. Marney Route 1, Box 330 Assistant Attorney General Tiptonville, TN 38079 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Victor S. Johnson, III District Attorney General

Lila Statom Dan Hamm Assistant District Attorneys General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED: ___________________

AFFIRMED--RULE 20

PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

OPINION The appellant, Carl London, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief.

In January 1992, the appellant pled guilty to one count of aggravated rape and

received a twenty-three-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of

Correction. On January 17, 1997, the appellant filed a pro se petition for post-

conviction relief, and on February 5, 1997, the trial court dismissed the petition.

The court held that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations, and

the appellant’s challenge to his sentence calculation was not a cognizable claim

for post-conviction relief.

The appellant’s primary issue for review then is whether the trial court

properly denied his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

The appellant contends that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing

his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that his guilty plea was

involuntarily entered, that his attorney provided ineffective assistance, and that

the state breached its plea agreement with him regarding his sentence.

The state argues that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the

appellant’s petition. The state contends that because the appellant’s conviction

became final in January 1992, his filing of a post-conviction petition on January

17, 1997, which was almost five years after his conviction, was time barred.

Also, the state asserts that the appellant’s challenge to his sentence calculation

is not a cognizable claim for post-conviction relief.

We agree with the court’s determination that the appellant’s petition was

time barred and did not state a cognizable claim for relief. Therefore, we affirm

the denial of the petition pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of

Criminal Appeals.

_______________________

-2- PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge

CONCUR:

_____________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge

_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

-3-