ERIC R. WRIGHT
GRADY PERRY, WARDEN
Assigned on Briefs October 4, 2016
from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County No. CC-16-CR-44
Joseph H. Walker, III, Judge
se petitioner, Eric R. Wright, appeals the habeas court's
summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus
alleging eleven reasons why the habeas court erred. After
review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
R. Wright, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; and
Jonathan H. Wardle, Assistant Attorney General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.
E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Camille R. McMullen and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
E. GLENN, JUDGE
January 1990, the Shelby County Grand Jury indicted the
petitioner for one count of robbery with a deadly weapon and
two counts of assault with intent to commit murder in the
first degree, all committed on October 15, 1989. The
petitioner was convicted by a jury of all counts. See
Eric Wright v. State, No. W2009-00864-CCA-R3-PC, slip
op. at 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 24, 2010).
September 20, 1990, the petitioner was sentenced as a Range
III, persistent offender, to consecutive terms of thirty
years for the robbery and sixty years for each assault,
resulting in an effective sentence of 150 years. See Eric
R. Wright v. Michael Donahue, No. 2:11-cv-03102-SHM-tmp,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136175, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 31,
2015). Because the offenses were committed before the
effective date of the 1989 Sentencing Act but the petitioner
was convicted after the effective date of the Act, the trial
court was to calculate the appropriate sentence under both
the 1982 and 1989 sentencing law and impose the lesser
sentence of the two. See Eric Wright, No.
W2009-00864-CCA-R3-PC, slip op. at 11. The maximum effective
sentence under the 1982 law would have been 180 years with no
parole, which was more than the 150 years at 45% the
petitioner received under the 1989 law. See id.
summary of the evidence adduced at trial from an opinion of
this court affirming the denial of one of the
petitioner's petitions for post-conviction relief is as
This matter concerns the October 15, 1989 robbery of a Circle
K service station on Lamar Avenue in Memphis, Tennessee. The
evidence presented at the petitioner's trial showed that,
at approximately 4:50 a.m. that day, two black males entered
the store, and one of them shot Ricky Coleman, the store
clerk's boyfriend, in the face without warning. The store
clerk, Stella Oakes Coleman,  opened the register for the men,
and they removed the cash from the drawer. Mrs. Coleman
testified that there was approximately $20 in the register.
The men demanded that she open the store's safe, but she
was not able to open the time-lock safe. Instead, the men
pressed the button on the safe that allowed clerks to access
the currency when they needed change. In this way, the men
took $10 in $1 bills from the safe. When Mrs. Coleman went to
check on Mr. Coleman, who was lying on the floor, the shooter
shot her twice.
See id. at 2.
petitioner filed a direct appeal, in which he challenged the
sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the legality of the
verdict, and the trial court's failure to grant a special
jury instruction. State v. Eric R. Wright, No.
02C01-9107-CR-00152, 1992 WL 1414, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App.
Jan. 8, 1992). This court affirmed the petitioner's
convictions and sentences by memorandum opinion on January 8,
1992. Id. The petitioner did not timely file an
application for permission to appeal this court's
decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court. See Eric Wright
v. State, No. W2001-00386-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 1690194, at
*1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 17, 2001). Evidently, the
petitioner's appellate counsel failed to inform the
petitioner that his direct appeal had been denied, and his
attorney never filed a Rule 11 application for permission to
appeal or moved to withdraw. See id. This came to
light when the petitioner, on April 27, 2000, filed a motion
for appointment of counsel to file a Rule 11 application.
See id. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied the
petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel to file a
Rule 11 application but indicated that the petitioner's
recourse was to file a post-conviction petition alleging
ineffective assistance of counsel and seeking a delayed
appeal. See id.
December 11, 2000, the petitioner filed a petition for
post-conviction relief. See id. The post-conviction
court denied the petition as untimely, but this court
remanded the case to determine whether due process tolled the
statute of limitations. See id. at
*2-3. On remand, the post-conviction court held
that due process tolled the statute of limitations and
granted permission for the petitioner to seek a delayed Rule
11 appeal. See Eric Wright, No.
W2009-00864-CCA-R3-PC, slip op. at 3. The Tennessee Supreme
Court denied the ...