Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Loverson v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

August 15, 2019

CARL LOVERSON
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs October 2, 2018

          Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 16-03284 Lee V. Coffee, Judge

         The Petitioner, Carl Loverson, filed a pro se "Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and/or Petition for Clerical Error, Ommission [sic] in Records," alleging that, contrary to the trial court's order, he was transported to the Tennessee Department of Correction instead of being released into a drug program. The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely and for failure to state a colorable claim for relief. The Petitioner appeals. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

          Carl Loverson, Hartsville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Alanda Dwyer, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Norma McGee Ogle, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams, P.J., and Alan E. Glenn, J., joined.

          OPINION

          NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE

         I. Factual Background

         On May 12, 2016, the Petitioner was indicted for two counts of aggravated assault, a Class C felony; one count of reckless endangerment, a Class C felony; two counts of being a convicted felon in possession of a handgun, a Class D felony; and one count of coercion of a witness, a Class C felony. On January 18, 2017, the Petitioner pled guilty to the charged offenses. He was sentenced as a Range II, multiple offender to concurrent sentences of eight years for each Class C felony and three years for each Class D felony, for a total effective sentence of eight years.

         On February 26, 2018, the Petitioner filed a "Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and/or Petition for Clerical Error, Ommission [sic] in Records." In the petition, the Petitioner alleged that he "fell within the requirements for the Jericho Program and, even the presiding Judge said he was going to get the [Petitioner] assistant [sic] for his drug problem before he became sick and missed court several times." The Petitioner said that he was supposed to be assigned to the program "until for no reason, [he] was transported to the Tennessee Department of Correction." The Petitioner contended that the transfer was illegal and that the post-conviction court could correct an illegal sentence and judgment at any time. The Petitioner asserted that defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the judge agreed to his enrollment. The Petitioner maintains that the agreement was "administrated on record and in open court" and that it should have been honored.

         The post-conviction court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing or appointment of counsel, finding that "[p]er the attached documents, the Petitioner submitted the petition to prison authorities for mailing on February 20, 2018," which was beyond the one-year statute of limitations for filing a post-conviction petition. The post-conviction court stated that the Petitioner had failed to allege any grounds warranting a tolling of the statute of limitations. Moreover, the post-conviction court found that the Petitioner's complaint was that he had failed to receive alternative sentencing; therefore, the Petitioner had not stated any legal grounds for post-conviction relief. On appeal, the Petitioner challenges this ruling.

         II. Analysis

         On appeal, the Petitioner appears to concede that his petition for post-conviction relief was untimely and asks for an "extension of time" on the one-year statute of limitations so the post-conviction court could "administ[er] fairness" and sentence him to the Jericho Program. The Petitioner maintains that "train[ed] professionals" testified that he qualified for the program and that the trial judge noted on the judgment a recommendation that the Petitioner be admitted to the program. The State contends the post-conviction court correctly determined that the post-conviction ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.