Assigned on Briefs August 1, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 05-03251 Chris
Curtis Wren, filed a petition for post-conviction relief and
a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The post-conviction
court summarily dismissed the pleading, finding that the
petition for post-conviction relief was untimely, that the
petition failed to allege a sufficient factual basis for a
motion to reopen prior post-conviction proceedings, and that
the petition failed to state a colorable claim of an illegal
sentence. On appeal, Petitioner only challenges the dismissal
of his petition for post-conviction relief. Upon our review
of the record, we determine that this is Petitioner's
second such petition and that dismissal was proper on that
ground. Thus, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
L. Wren, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Jonathan H. Wardle, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P.
Weirich, District Attorney General; and Karen Cook, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Timothy L. Easter, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Robert W. Wedemeyer, JJ.,
TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE
ten years ago, Petitioner was convicted of attempted
especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated
robbery, and intentionally evading arrest in a motor vehicle.
He received a total effective sentence of 30 years. No direct
appeal was filed.
Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The
record presently before this Court contains a copy of the
order dismissing the petition filed on March 31, 2009, but
does not contain a copy of the petition itself. The order
states that after consideration of "the petition, the
State's Motion to Dismiss, and the entire record, "
the petition was dismissed for "fail[ure] to contain
clear and specific statements of all grounds upon which
relief is sought, including a full statement of the factual
basis underlying these grounds." No appeal from this
order was filed.
subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus relief,
challenging his mental competency to stand trial, the
effectiveness of counsel, and the voluntariness of his guilty
pleas. Curtis L. Wren v. David Osborne, Warden, No.
E2012-00072-CCA-R3-HC, 2012 WL 3201906, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Aug. 8, 2012) (memorandum opinion), no perm. app.
filed. This Court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas
corpus petition pursuant to Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. Id. at *2.
present petition, styled "Petition for Post-Conviction
Relief and/or Motion Pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 to
Correct Illegal Sentence, " was filed on January 30,
2017. Petitioner alleged that he was entitled to
post-conviction relief because he was not mentally competent
at the time he entered his guilty pleas; because his trial
counsel improperly advised him that he could be subject to a
life sentence if he did not plead guilty, even though,
according to Petitioner, there is a new constitutional rule
that prohibits an intellectually disabled person from being
subject to a life sentence; and because his trial counsel
should have argued that the two aggravated robbery
convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy.
Petitioner also alleged that the statute of limitations
should be tolled due to his mental incompetence and because
there was a new rule of constitutional law. Further, citing
the statute for a motion to reopen post-conviction
proceedings, Petitioner claimed that he possessed "new
scientific evidence" of his intellectual disability,
attaching to his pleading copies of a petition for the
appointment of a conservator and a report of a guardian ad
litem that were filed in 2013 with regard to administering
medications to Petitioner while in the Department of
Correction's custody. As for his claim under Rule 36.1,
Petitioner claimed without further elaboration that he
received "an illegal sentence in direct contravention of
T.C.A. [§] 40-35-501, " which addresses parole
release eligibility. Additionally, Petitioner elaborates on
his claim that his dual convictions for aggravated robbery
violate double jeopardy principles as a basis for his claim
of an illegal sentence.
February 2, 2017, the post-conviction court summarily
dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief, finding
that it was filed well outside of the one-year statute of
limitations. Treating the petition as a motion to reopen, the
court found that Petitioner had not satisfied any of the
statutory grounds to reopen his previous post-conviction
proceedings. Finally, the court found that Petitioner failed