State vs.Carl London ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED JULY 1998 SESSION July 23, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk CARL LONDON, ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9710-CR-00458 Appellant, ) ) Davidson County V. ) ) Honorable J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conviction) Appellee. ) ) FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Carl London, Pro Se John Knox Walkup TDOC # 122534 Attorney General & Reporter Lake County Regional Correctional Facility Elizabeth B. Marney Route 1, Box 330 Assistant Attorney General Tiptonville, TN 38079 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 Victor S. Johnson, III District Attorney General Lila Statom Dan Hamm Assistant District Attorneys General Washington Square, Suite 500 222 Second Avenue North Nashville, TN 37201-1649 OPINION FILED: ___________________ AFFIRMED--RULE 20 PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge OPINION The appellant, Carl London, appeals the denial of post-conviction relief. In January 1992, the appellant pled guilty to one count of aggravated rape and received a twenty-three-year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On January 17, 1997, the appellant filed a pro se petition for post- conviction relief, and on February 5, 1997, the trial court dismissed the petition. The court held that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations, and the appellant’s challenge to his sentence calculation was not a cognizable claim for post-conviction relief. The appellant’s primary issue for review then is whether the trial court properly denied his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The appellant contends that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. He argues that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered, that his attorney provided ineffective assistance, and that the state breached its plea agreement with him regarding his sentence. The state argues that the post-conviction court properly dismissed the appellant’s petition. The state contends that because the appellant’s conviction became final in January 1992, his filing of a post-conviction petition on January 17, 1997, which was almost five years after his conviction, was time barred. Also, the state asserts that the appellant’s challenge to his sentence calculation is not a cognizable claim for post-conviction relief. We agree with the court’s determination that the appellant’s petition was time barred and did not state a cognizable claim for relief. Therefore, we affirm the denial of the petition pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. _______________________ -2- PAUL G. SUMMERS, Judge CONCUR: _____________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, Judge _____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge -3-