James Edward Bostic, Jr. v. State of Tennessee ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                        08/09/2017
    IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE
    Assigned on Briefs June 20, 2017
    JAMES EDWARD BOSTIC, JR. v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
    Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County
    No. 2013-C-2607 Steve R. Dozier, Judge
    No. M2017-00087-CCA-R3-PC
    The Petitioner, James Edward Bostic, Jr., appeals from the Davidson County Criminal
    Court’s summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief from his guilty plea
    conviction of possession with intent to manufacture, deliver, or sell less than one-half
    gram of cocaine, a Class C felony, for which he is serving a twelve-year sentence as a
    Range III, persistent offender. Because the post-conviction court erred in summarily
    dismissing his petition as untimely, we reverse its judgment and remand the case for
    further proceedings.
    Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Reversed;
    Case Remanded
    ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ALAN E.
    GLENN and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.
    James Edward Bostic, Jr., Pikeville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
    Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Senior Counsel;
    Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; Jenny Charles, Assistant District Attorney
    General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
    OPINION
    The judgment relative to the Petitioner’s conviction was filed on September 19,
    2014, and it reflects that the Petitioner received a twelve-year community corrections
    sentence. In October 2016, a community corrections violation warrant was issued, and
    on October 26, 2016, the trial court revoked the Petitioner’s community corrections
    sentence and ordered that he serve the remainder of his twelve-year sentence in the
    Department of Correction. The Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on
    December 12, 2016, in which he alleged that he received the ineffective assistance of
    counsel in the community corrections revocation proceedings. The post-conviction court
    found that the petition was untimely and that the petition did not allege any grounds for
    relief that fell into an exception from the statute of limitations, and the court summarily
    dismissed the petition. The Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal.
    The State concedes in its brief that the post-conviction court erred in summarily
    dismissing the petition as untimely. In Carpenter v. State, 
    136 S.W.3d 608
    (Tenn. 2004),
    our supreme court recognized the right of a post-conviction petitioner to raise an
    ineffective assistance of counsel claim relative to community corrections revocation and
    resentencing proceedings. Carpenter and cases decided thereafter stand for the
    proposition that the Petitioner may proceed with a post convictions claim of ineffective
    assistance of counsel, but only as to the counsel who represented him during his
    community correction revocation hearing on October 26, 2016. This is true even though
    Petitioner was not resentenced after revocation. See Anthony L. Grant, Jr. v. State, No.
    M2007-00052-CCA-R3-PC, 
    2008 WL 4169985
    , at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 8, 2008)
    (interpreting Carpenter, 
    136 S.W.3d 608
    and Baker v. State, 
    989 S.W.2d 739
    (Tenn.
    Crim. App. 1998) to mean that “the trial court need not ‘resentence’ a defendant—i.e.,
    extend the length of the defendant's sentence—upon revoking a defendant's community
    corrections sentence for the defendant to have the right to file a post-conviction
    petition”); see also State v. Baby Dashea Nix, No. M2015-02270-CCA-R3-CD, 
    2016 WL 4578868
    , at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 1, 2016).
    The claims raised in the present case relate to allegations of ineffective assistance
    of counsel in the community corrections revocation proceedings. The post-conviction
    court erred in dismissing the petition summarily. In consideration of the foregoing and
    the record as a whole, the judgment of the post-conviction court is reversed. The case is
    remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
    _____________________________________
    ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M2017-00087-CCA-R3-PC

Judges: Judge Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.

Filed Date: 8/9/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021