Walden v. State

• Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
• Decided: October 22, 1997
• Docket: 03C01-9610-CR-00372
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE FILED AUGUST 1997 SESSION October 22, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk WILLIAM K. WALDEN, * C.C.A. # 03C01-9610-CR-00372

Appellant, * KNOX COUNTY

VS. * Hon. Ray L. Jenkins, Judge

STATE OF TENNESSEE, * (Post-Conviction)

Appellee. *

For Appellant: For Appellee:

Randall E. Reagan Charles W. Burson Attorney at Law Attorney General & Reporter 602 Gay Street, Ste. 905 Knoxville, TN 37902 Marvin E. Clements, Jr. Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493

Randall E. Nichols District Attorney General City-County Building Knoxville, TN 37902

OPINION FILED:_____________________

AFFIRMED

GARY R. WADE, JUDGE OPINION

The petitioner, William K. Walden, appeals the trial court's dismissal of

his petition for post-conviction relief. The single issue presented for review is

whether the petition was barred by the statute of limitations.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

On March 1, 1989, the petitioner entered pleas of guilt to two counts of

possession of a Schedule II controlled substance for resale and two counts of

possession of a Schedule VI controlled substance for resale. The trial court

imposed a Range I, ten-year sentence. Two petitions for post-conviction relief were

filed in 1989 but withdrawn on March 1, 1990. On April 30, 1996, the petitioner filed

a petition for post-conviction relief and, in the alternative, sought the re-opening of

his previously filed petition. Among other grounds, the petitioner alleged that he was

denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial.

At the time the petitioner was convicted, there was a three-year statute

of limitations under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-

102 (repealed 1995). An amendment to the Act, effective May 10, 1995, reduced

the limitations period to one year. The amendment provides, in part, as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this act to the contrary, any person having a ground for relief recognized under this act, shall have at least one (1) year from the effective date of this act to file a petition or a motion to reopen under this act.

1995 Tenn. Pub. Act 207, § 3. The petitioner contends that the amendment

established a one-year window of opportunity within which any petitioner could file

an action for post-conviction relief, whether the statute of limitations had previously

run or not.

2 Recently, our supreme court ruled that the amendment did not revive

any action which had been barred by the previous statute of limitations. Arnold

Carter v. State, ____ S.W.2d ____, No. 03-S-01-9612-CR-00117, slip op. at 6

(Tenn., at Knoxville, Sept. 8, 1997). Thus, the trial court properly dismissed this

petition.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

__________________________________ Gary R. Wade, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________ Paul G. Summers, Judge

_______________________________ William M. Barker, Judge