State v. Robert Taylor ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
ROBERT LEE TAYLOR, )
)
Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9805-CC-00161
)
vs. ) HAYWOOD COUNTY
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. 2903-CR
Respondent.
)
)
FILED
August 12, 1998
ORDER Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
This matter is before the Supreme Court upon the motion of the state to
affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s second
petition for post-conviction relief. In 1982, the petitioner was convicted of felony murder
and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. State v.
Taylor, 669 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. 1984).
The petitioner, by and through counsel, subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction
relief. The trial court dismissed the petition after conducting an evidentiary hearing.
This Court affirmed the dismissal on appeal, Taylor v. State, 875 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1993), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. 1994).
On September 12, 1997, the petitioner filed his second petition for post-
conviction relief. Finding that the petition did “not state any ground or claim upon which
relief may or should be granted,” the trial court dismissed the petition without
appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing.
T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c) provides that no more than one petition for post-
conviction relief may be filed attacking a single judgment, and mandates that the trial
court shall summarily dismiss any second or subsequent petition if a prior petition was
filed and resolved on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the
petitioner previously filed a petition that was resolved on the merits by the trial court and
by this Court on appeal, the petitioner's present petition was properly dismissed.
Additionally, after reviewing the entire record on appeal, we find that the petitioner’s
claim does not fall within one of the limited circumstances under which a prior petition
may be re-opened. See T.C.A. § 40-30-217.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in summarily
dismissing the petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. It is, therefore, ORDERED
that the state’s motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in
accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing the
petitioner is indigent, costs of this appeal shall be taxed to the state.
__________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
__________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
__________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
2