State v. Bobby Love ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
BOBBY J. LOVE, )
)
Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9809-CR-00261
)
vs.
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
) SHELBY COUNTY
)
) No. P-20160
FILED
) February 3, 1999
Respondent. )
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the
judgment of the trial court in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s petition
for post-conviction relief. On July 22, 1998, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition
challenging the validity of his guilty plea to robbery with a deadly weapon in 1988.1 The
petitioner alleges numerous errors at the guilty plea hearing, including the ineffective
assistance of counsel and the failure to advise him that the conviction could be used to
enhance future sentences. Finding that the statute of limitations had expired, the trial
court dismissed the petition without a hearing.
Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a)2, a person in custody under a sentence
of 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 became final. The
Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides several limited exceptions to the one-year
statute of limitations, however none of them are applicable to the present case. See §
40-30-202(b). The petition in this case was filed well beyond the applicable statute of
1
The petitioner also appears to be challenging guilty pleas to undisclosed offenses in 1986 and
1984. T he reco rd, howe ver, does not conta in copies of these judgm ents. No netheles s, his cha llenge to
these convictions under the post-conviction statute mu st also fail for the reason stated in this order.
2
The petition in this case was filed after May 10, 1995, and is therefore governed by the
provision s of the 1 995 Po st-Con viction Pro cedure Act. See Comp iler’s Notes, T.C.A. § 40-30-201 (1997).
limitations, and is, therefore, untimely. 3 Accordingly, the post-conviction court properly
dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. T.C.A. § 40-30-206(b).
The state’s motion is granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that
the judgment of the trial court is affirmed by order in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of
the Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing to the Court that the petitioner is indigent,
costs of this proceeding shall be taxed to the state.
________________________________
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
________________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
3
The pe tition would als o be bar red und er the pre vious thre e year statu te of limitation s. See
T.C.A . § 40-30 -102 (19 90) (rep ealed); Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W .2d 619, 624 (Tenn. Crim . App.),
perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. 1994).
2