Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs September 3, 2014
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 1104740 Lee V. Coffee, Judge
Gary Lilley, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Senior Counsel; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.
Robert W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Alan E. Glenn and Robert L. Holloway, Jr., JJ., joined.
ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE
In 2011, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of premeditated first degree murder with an agreed upon life sentence to be served at 100 percent. In 2012, the Petitioner filed, pro se, a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming that he had received the ineffective assistance of counsel on a number of grounds. The post-conviction court appointed an attorney to the Petitioner, following which the Petitioner sent a letter to the attorney stating that he no longer wished to proceed with the post-conviction proceedings. Citing the Petitioner's letter, which was filed in the post-conviction court, the court entered an order on November 19, 2012, dismissing the petition with prejudice. In April 2013, the Petitioner filed a motion in the post-conviction court requesting that the November 19, 2012 order be withdrawn, stating that the Petitioner "had no intention" of not proceeding with the petition.
The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely stating that "The statute of limitations bars the [P]etitioner's petition [for] post-conviction relief pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-3-102 in that more than one year has passed since the date of the final court action on the [P]etitioner's case[.]" The post-conviction court, noting that the Petitioner's post-conviction attorney had requested and received in writing confirmation of the Petitioner's wishes not to proceed with post-conviction matters, made the following statement in its order:
The [P]etitioner has not shown that he fits within an exception to the statute of limitations. In this case, the Petitioner does not assert any averments that the statute of limitations should not bar this post-conviction petition.
The [P]etitioner does not offer any due process grounds that would allow the court to waive or disregard the statute of limitations that serves as a bar to this claim.
A review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing reflects that the trial court thoroughly reviewed with the [P]etitioner his rights, the offense to which he was pleading guilty, and the sentence he was receiving. The [P]etitioner repeatedly assured the trial court that he understood his pleas.
It is from this judgment that the ...