State v. James Jones ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
JANUARY SESSION, 1998 February 11, 1998
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellate Court Clerk
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9612-CC-00522
)
Appellee, )
) VAN BUREN COUNTY
)
V. )
) HON. CHARLES D. HASTON, JUDGE
JAMES RONALD JONES, )
)
Appe llant. ) (POST-C ONVIC TION)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JAME S RO NALD JON ES, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP
1102 4-074 , Shelb y Unit Attorney General & Reporter
P.O. Box 34550
Memphis, TN 38184-0550 ELIZABETH B. MARNEY
Assistant Attorney General
2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building
425 Fifth Avenue North
Nashville, TN 37243
WILLIAM M. LOCKE
District Attorn ey Ge neral
111 Professional Building
McMinnville, TN 37110
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
OPINION
The Petitioner, James Ronald Jones, appeals the order of the Van Buren
Circu it Court dismissing his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court
found that the pe tition was filed outside th e statute o f limitations. W e affirm the
judgm ent of the tria l court.
From the rec ord on appe al, it appears that Petitioner was convicted of arson
in Van Buren County in October, 1989 following a plea of guilty. At the time of his
guilty plea, there was a three-year statute of limitations for filing post-conviction
petitioners pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102 (repealed
1995). Therefore, Petitioner had until October, 1992 in which to timely file a petition
for post-conviction relief. However, Petitioner did not file his petition for p ost-
conviction relief until Ma y 10, 199 6. The tria l court sub seque ntly dismissed the
petition be cause it was time -barred.
Petitioner relies on this Court’s decision in Arnold C arter v. State , C.C.A. No.
03C01-9509-CC-00270, Monro e Cou nty (Ten n. Crim. A pp., Knoxville, July 11,
1996), holding that the new Post-Con viction Procedu re Act, effective May 10, 1995,
granted an ad ditiona l one-y ear pe riod, un til May 1 0, 199 6, to file a post-conviction
petition. Howe ver, ou r supre me c ourt re verse d this Cour t’s decision in Carter. See
Carter v. State, 952 S.W.2d 417 (T enn. 19 97); see also Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-
201 et seq. In Carter, our sup reme c ourt held the followin g:
[The new Act] is not intended to revive claims that were barred by the
previous statute of lim itations. W e agree w ith the view th at the statu te
was intended to restrict the tim e and o pportu nity to seek post-conviction
relief. Clearly, this purpose is not served by a statutory construction
-2-
that allows ad ditional time and op portunity for petitioners whose claims
are alrea dy barred by the prior statute of lim itations.
Carter v. State, 952 S.W .2d at 420. Th erefore, “petitioners for whom the statute of
limitations expired prior to the effective date of the new Act, i.e., May 10, 1995, do
not have an additional year in which to file petitions for post-conviction relief.” Id. at
418.
According ly, we conclude that the trial court correctly found that the petition
was barred by the statue of limitations, and therefore, a summary dismissal of the
petition wa s appro priate. Te nn. Co de Ann . § 40-30 -206(b).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
____________________________________
THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES , Judge
___________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, Judge
-3-