State v. Jones ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
MAY 1998 SESSION
June 26, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
RONALD L. JONES, )
)
Appellant, ) No. 03C01-9710-CR-00428
)
) Hamilton County
v. )
) Honorable Rebecca J. Stern, Judge
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction)
)
Appellee. )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Alan R. Beard John Knox Walkup
601 Chattanooga Bank Building Attorney General of Tennessee
615 Lindsey Street and
Chattanooga, TN 37402 Clinton J. Morgan
Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
William H. Cox, III
District Attorney General
and
David Denny
Assistant District Attorney General
600 Market Street, Suite 310
Chattanooga, TN 37402
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
Joseph M. Tipton
Judge
OPINION
The petitioner, Ronald L. Jones, appeals as of right from the Hamilton
County Criminal Court’s summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction
relief1 on the ground that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner
contends that the petition was timely filed under the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure
Act. He argues that the application of the statute of limitations violates his due process
rights because he was unaware of developments in Tennessee law because he was
incarcerated in a federal prison in Kansas. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The petitioner collaterally challenges convictions he received in 1984,
1986, 1989 and 1990 as a result of guilty pleas. The convictions were used to enhance
the defendant’s sentence for a conviction of a federal offense. The petitioner filed his
petition on December 30, 1996.
Under the post-conviction law applicable at the times of his convictions,
the petitioner had three years to file a post-conviction petition from the date of the final
action of the highest state appellate court to which an appeal was taken. T.C.A. § 40-
30-102 (1990). The petition was not filed within that period. Also, the 1995 Post-
Conviction Act did not reinstate a filing period for which the former three-year post-
conviction statute of limitations had already run. Carter v. State, 952 S.W.2d 417, 420
(Tenn. 1997). The petitioner’s claim that he was ignorant of the law does not excuse
his late filing of the petition. See Brown v. State, 928 S.W.2d 453, 456 (Tenn. 1996)
(“Ignorance of statute of limitations is not an excuse for late filing, even when the
petitioner claims that he did not learn of the statute’s enactment because he was
incarcerated in another state.”).
1
The petition is titled a “MOTION TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF PRIOR STATE
CONV ICTIONS .” The trial court properly treated the petition as one for post-conviction relief.
2
In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
Joe G. Riley, Judge
Curwood Witt, Judge
3