State v. Robert Bitner ( 1998 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT JACKSON               FILED
    FEBRUARY SESS ION, 1998       February 24, 1998
    Cecil Crowson, Jr.
    Appellate C ourt Clerk
    ROBERT DUANE BITNER,              )   C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9705-CC-00177
    )
    Appe llant,            )
    )   CARROLL COUNTY
    V.                                )
    )
    )   HON. C. CREED MCGINLEY, JUDGE
    STATE OF TENNESSEE,               )
    )
    Appellee.              )   (POST-C ONVIC TION)
    FOR THE APPELLANT:                    FOR THE APPELLEE:
    ROB ERT DUAN E BITN ER, pro se        JOHN KNOX WALKUP
    Register Number 216742                Attorney General & Reporter
    Route 1, Box 330
    Tiptonville, TN 38079-9775            KENNETH W. RUCKER
    Assistant Attorney General
    2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
    425 Fifth Avenue North
    Nashville, TN 37243
    G. ROBERT RADFORD
    District Attorn ey Ge neral
    ELEANOR CAHILL
    Assistant District Attorney General
    111 Church Street
    P.O. Box 686
    Huntingdon, TN 38344-0686
    OPINION FILED ________________________
    AFFIRMED
    THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
    OPINION
    This case rep resents an app eal from the dism issal of the Petitio ner’s
    petition for post-co nviction relief. The Petitioner was originally convicted of three (3)
    counts of aggravated sexual battery and received an effective twenty-four (24) year
    sentence. This court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on direct app eal, State
    v. Bitner, C.C.A. No. 02C01-9307-CC-00148 , Carroll C ounty (T enn. C rim. App .,
    Jackson, May 25, 1994), and the supreme court denied application for permission
    to appeal on August 29, 1994. On July 1 0, 1996 , Petitioner filed a petition for post-
    conviction relief. Finding that the statu te of limitations had exp ired, the trial court
    dismissed the petition without a hearing.
    The petition in this case was filed after the effective date of the 1995
    Post-Conviction Procedure Act, and is therefore governed by the provisions found
    therein. Com piler’s Notes, 
    Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-3
     0-201 (1 997). Pu rsuant to
    Tennessee Code Annotated section 4 0-30-20 2(a) (199 7), a person in custody under
    a sentence o f a court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief within one
    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 year of the date on which
    judgment beca me fin al. This section further provides that the statute of limitations
    shall not be tolled for any reason, including any tolling or saving provision otherwise
    availab le at law or equity, other than three (3) exceptions set forth in Tennessee
    Code Annota ted sectio n 40-30 -202(b)( 1), (2) and (3).          None of these exceptions
    applie s in this cas e. Jud gme nt in this case became final on August 29, 1994, and
    the Petition er did no t file his petition fo r post-co nviction relief u ntil July 10, 19 96.
    -2-
    According ly, his petition was barred by the statute of limitations. Because the prior
    three year statute of limitations had not expired on the e ffective date of the new Ac t,
    the Petition er had until Ma y 10, 19 96, in w hich to file his petition for post-conviction
    relief. See Com piler’s Notes, 
    Tenn. Code Ann. § 4
     0-30-20 1 (1997 ); Mane y v. State,
    C.C.A. No. 03C01-9612-CR-00470, Bradley County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville,
    Oct. 10, 1997) (no Rule 11 ap plication filed). However, as noted, the petition in this
    case was filed beyond that date.
    In Carter v. S tate, 
    952 S.W.2d 417
     (Tenn. 1997), our sup reme cou rt
    recognized situations in which the new on e year sta tue of limitations would expire
    before the prior three year statute. The court held that the enabling provision of the
    1995 Act whic h grante d perso ns in thes e situation s until May 10, 199 6, in which to
    file a petition for post-conviction relief, adequately protected the rights of these
    person s. 
    Id.
     At 420.
    Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court correctly found that the
    petition was barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore, a sum mary dismissal
    of the petition was ap propriate . Tenn. C ode An n. § 40-3 0-206(b ) (1997).
    The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
    ____________________________________
    THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
    CONCUR:
    ___________________________________
    JOSEPH B. JONES, Presiding Judge
    ___________________________________
    JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02C01-9705-CC-00177

Filed Date: 2/24/1998

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014