Assigned on Briefs April 2, 2019
from the Circuit Court for Tipton County No. 8879 Joe H.
Walker, III, Judge.
Petitioner, Christopher Danta Logan, appeals the Tipton
County Circuit Court's summary dismissal of his pro se
petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner argues
that he timely filed his petition alleging he received the
ineffective assistance of counsel. The State agrees that the
Petitioner timely filed his petition. After a review of the
record and applicable law, we conclude that the
post-conviction court committed reversible error; therefore,
we reverse the post-conviction court's summary dismissal
of the petition and remand for a hearing regarding the
timeliness of the Petitioner's post-conviction petition.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Court Reversed; Case Remanded
Christopher Danta Logan, Tiptonville, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Clark
B. Thornton, Assistant Attorney General; and Mark E.
Davidson, District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State
Everett Williams, P.J., delivered the opinion of the court,
in which Alan E. Glenn and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
EVERETT WILLIAMS, PRESIDING JUDGE.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
12, 2017, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to felony failure to
appear in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section
39-16-609 and received an effective sentence of six years as
a career offender. The judgment was entered on the same day.
The Petitioner's notarized petition for post-conviction
relief is dated June 8, 2018, and the petition was stamped as
filed on June 14, 2018. The Petitioner asserts that he did
not enter his plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
He also asserted that trial counsel was ineffective for not
investigating whether he qualified as a career offender and
that trial counsel failed to inform him of the possible
outcome of a jury trial.
post-conviction court entered an order on June 14, 2018,
finding that the petition was untimely and summarily
dismissing the petition. The Petitioner now appeals.
appeal, the Petitioner maintains that his petition was timely
and that, thus, the post-conviction court erred in summarily
dismissing his petition. The State agrees with the Petitioner
that the petition was timely filed.
court reviews a post-conviction court's summary dismissal
of a post-conviction petition de novo. See Burnett v.
State, 92 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tenn. 2002). Post-conviction
relief is available to petitioners for any conviction or
sentence that is "void or voidable because of the
abridgment of any right guaranteed by the Constitution of
Tennessee or the Constitution of the United States."
T.C.A. § 40-30-103. A pro se petitioner is required to
file for post-conviction relief "within one (1) year of
the date of the final action of the highest state appellate
court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken,
within one (1) year of the date on which the judgment became
final." T.C.A. § 40-30-102(a). As a general rule, a
trial court's ...