State v. Bruce Edward Rochefort ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
AUGUST 1999 SESSION
September 27, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9902-CR-00029
Plaintiff/Appellee, )
) Dekalb County
v. )
) Honorable Leon Burns, Jr.
BRUCE EDWARD ROCHEFORT, ) Judge
)
Defendant/Appellant. ) (Post-Conviction Relief Denied)
) Affirmed Rule 20
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
BRUCE EDWARD ROCHEFORT PAUL G. SUMMERS
CCA/SCCC Attorney General & Reporter
P.O. Box 279
Clifton, Tennessee 38425-0279 CLINTON J. MORGAN
Counsel for the State
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0493
OPINION FILED: _________________________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JUDGE
OPINION
The appellant, Bruce E. Rochefort, referred herein as “the petitioner,” has appealed
as of right from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the
Dekalb County Criminal Court. The petitioner presents one issue on appeal:
1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for post-
conviction relief?
After a review of the record, briefs of the parties, and appropriate law, we AFFIRM
the trial court’s judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On March 7, 1997, the petitioner entered two pleas of guilty to aggravated assault
and was taken into custody. The petitioner was represented by court appointed counsel.
There was no appeal of any nature. On November 27, 1998, the petitioner filed a pro se
petition for post-conviction relief with the Dekalb County Criminal Court. The petitioner
asserts, through a number of sub-issues, that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right
to effective assistance of counsel in violation of the United States Constitution and Article
1, Section 9, of the Tennessee Constitution. On January 7, 1999, the trial court summarily
dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing based upon the statute of limitations.
The petitioner contends the trial court erred in that the petitioner did not learn of his
counsel’s ineffective assistance of counsel until months after his conviction.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-202(a) provides that “a person in custody
under a sentence of a court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief under this
part within one (1) year of the date of the final action of the highest state appellate court
to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, within one (1) year of the date on
which the judgment became final. . . .” The statute further provides that the limitations
period “shall not be tolled for any reason, including any tolling or saving provision otherwise
available at law or equity.” Id. There are certain exceptions in this statute which do not
apply in this case. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(b).
In the present case, the petitioner filed his petition for post-conviction relief outside
the statute of limitations set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-202(a), and he
has failed to establish that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel falls within one of
2
the exceptions in § 40-30-202(b).
It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to
Rule 20.
L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JUDGE
CONCUR:
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
3