Moore v. State , 943 S.W.2d 878 ( 1997 )

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T E N N E S S E E FILED
A T K N O X V I L L E
April 28, 1997
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
L A W R E N C E M O O R E ) F O R P U B L I C A T I O N
)
A p p e l l e e ) F I L E D : A P R I L 2 8 , 1 9 9 7
)
v . ) K N O X C O U N T Y
)
S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E ) H O N . R A Y L . J E N K I N S , J U D G E
)
A p p e l l a n t ) N O . 0 3 - S - 0 1 - 9 6 0 7 - C R - 0 0 0 7 3
F o r A p p e l l e e : F o r A p p e l l a n t :
M A R K E . S T E P H E N S J O H N K N O X W A L K U P
P u b l i c D e f e n d e r A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r
P A U L A R . V O S S M I C H A E L E . M O O R E
A s s i s t a n t P u b l i c D e f e n d e r S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l
K n o x v i l l e , T N
G O R D O N W . S M I T H
A s s o c i a t e S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l
N a s h v i l l e , T N
R A N D A L L E . N I C H O L S
D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l
Z A N E S C A R L E T T
A s s i s t a n t D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y
G e n e r a l
K n o x v i l l e , T N
O P I N I O N
J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S B I R C H , C . J .
REVERSED; PETITION DISMISSED
2
In 1994, Lawrence Moore, the petitioner, filed a pro se
petition for habeas corpus relief alleging that his 1983
convictions for robbery and kidnapping violated his due process
rights under the state constitution. Treating the petition as one
for post-conviction relief, the trial court concluded that the
statute of limitations barred consideration of the claim and
dismissed the petition. The Court of Criminal Appeals found that
the petition raised a claim under State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299
(Tenn. 1991). In addition, the intermediate court held that
Anthony announced a new constitutional rule that applied
retroactively, and therefore, under Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d
204 (Tenn. 1992), and Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995),
Moore’s petition was timely. We granted the State’s application
for permission to appeal.
After granting the State’s application, we released our
opinion in State v. Denton, S.W.2d , 1996 WL 688350 (Tenn.
December 2, 1996). In Denton, we held that Anthony did not
announce a new constitutional rule:
Prior to Anthony, there were two
lower court opinions that applied
the same rule. See Brown v. State,
574 S.W.2d 57 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1978) and State v. Rollins, 605
S.W.2d 828 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1980).
Further, although there was a dearth
of direct Tennessee case law on the
issue, numerous other jurisdictions
had addressed the relationship
between kidnapping and other
felonies that characteristically
involved some detention of the
victim. While the case law from
other state jurisdictions does not
constitute “precedent” within the
Meadows/Teague rule, such analyses
3
of the issue were widespread and
represented a body of persuasive
authority available to the
petitioner. In light of the
previous intermediate court
opinions, we hold that Anthony did
not announce a new rule.
Id. at *2. Because Anthony did not announce a new constitutional
rule, it does not constitute a “later-arising” ground for relief
under Sands. Consideration of Moore’s petition is barred by the
statute of limitations. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990).
The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is
reversed, and the petition is dismissed.
________________________________________
ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., Chief Justice
CONCUR:
Drowota, Anderson, Reid, Holder, JJ.
4