Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs January 17, 2018
from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 91-S-1146 J.
Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge
Lamont Wolley, the Petitioner, appeals from the
post-conviction court's order summarily dismissing his
second post-conviction petition. Discerning no error, we
affirm the post-conviction court's order.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Lamont Wolley, Pikeville, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia
S. Lee, Senior Counsel; Glenn Funk, District Attorney
General; and Amy Hunter, Assistant District Attorney General,
for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
L. Holloway, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Timothy L. Easter, J.,
L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE
Factual and Procedural History
1992, the Petitioner pled guilty to charges of first degree
premeditated murder, first degree felony murder, and
aggravated kidnapping in case number 91-S-1146. See
Jerome Lamont Wolley v. State, No. 01C01-9311-CR-00402,
1994 WL 585397, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 20, 1994),
perm. app. denied (Tenn. Feb. 6, 1995). Thereafter,
the Petitioner filed his first petition for post-conviction
relief, which alleged that he received ineffective assistance
of counsel and that his guilty pleas were involuntary and
unknowing. Id. The post-conviction court denied
relief, and this court affirmed the denial on appeal.
November 6, 2015, the Petitioner filed a writ of error coram
nobis, which the coram nobis court denied. On March 22,
2017, the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen his first
post-conviction petition. The Petitioner alleged that he had
received information from his post-conviction counsel that
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had concluded that
the lab report discussing the testing of DNA evidence in case
number 91-S-1146 was inaccurate. More specifically, the FBI
concluded that the lab report overstated "the
conclusions that may appropriately be drawn from a positive
association between evidentiary hair and a known hair
sample." The post-conviction court denied the
Petitioner's motion to reopen his first post-conviction
petition on April 4, 2017.
April 4, 2017, the Petitioner filed a motion to withdraw his
motion to reopen his first post-conviction petition. He also
filed his second post-conviction petition, which alleged the
same grounds for relief as his motion to reopen his initial
petition. The post-conviction court received these documents
on April 7, 2017. On May 2, 2017, the Petitioner filed a
Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 28 application to reopen his
first post-conviction petition, which this court denied on
June 21, 2017. Jerome L. Wolley v. State, No.
M2017-00892-CCA-R28-PC, slip op. at 1, 3 (Tenn. Crim. App.
June 21, 2017) (order denying permission to appeal under
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, Sec. 10(b)). On May 26, 2017, the
post-conviction court denied the Petitioner's motion to
withdraw his motion to reopen his post-conviction petition
because the post-conviction court "had already ruled on
his motion to reopen his post-conviction proceedings by the
time the [post-conviction] [c]ourt received the [i]nstant
motion." The post-conviction court also summarily
dismissed the Petitioner's second post-conviction
petition under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(c).
The Petitioner now timely appeals the post-conviction
court's order dismissing his second post-conviction
Post-Conviction Procedure Act "contemplates the filing
of only one (1) petition for post-conviction relief. In no
event may more than one (1) petition for post-conviction
relief be filed attacking a single judgment." Tenn. Code
Ann. § 40-30-102(c). "If a prior petition has been
filed which was resolved on the merits by a court of
competent jurisdiction, ...