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.

Goldsmith v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

September 4, 2019

REGINALD LAMON GOLDSMITH
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs July 16, 2019

          Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2015-B-1110 Angelita Blackshear Dalton, Judge

         The Petitioner, Reginald Lamon Goldsmith, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that the post-conviction court abused its discretion in failing to appoint post-conviction counsel and summarily dismissing the petition. Following our review, we affirm the summary dismissal of the petition as time-barred and conclude that the Petitioner has waived his due process claim.

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

          Reginald Lamon Goldsmith, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ruth Anne Thompson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Chad Butler, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Alan E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Thomas T. Woodall and Norma McGee Ogle, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE

         FACTS

         The Petitioner was indicted on May 5, 2015, by a Davidson County Criminal Court jury for six counts of rape of a child and one count of aggravated sexual battery. On February 3, 2016, the Petitioner pled guilty to two counts of rape of a child, and the remaining counts were dismissed. The Petitioner was sentenced to two concurrent sentences of thirty-two years, and no appeal was filed.

         On July 16, 2018, the Petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his guilty plea was involuntary, that his sentence was illegal, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. On September 5, 2018, the post-conviction court entered a written order summarily dismissing the petition as untimely and noting that the Petitioner did not assert any exceptions to the one-year statute of limitations. The Petitioner filed a notice of appeal on October 1, 2018. On December 19, 2018, this court filed an order stating that the Petitioner's appeal would be dismissed if he did not file a brief within 30 days of the order. Following his failure to file a brief, this court dismissed the Petitioner's appeal on January 30, 2019. On February 6, 2019, the Petitioner filed a motion to rehear, alleging that (1) the prison librarian had changed the library schedule; (2) the prison had been under administrative lockdown in December 2018; and (3) officers refused to aid the Petitioner in meeting his deadline during the administrative lockdown. On February 25, 2019, this court granted the Petitioner's motion to rehear, allowing him an additional 30 days to file his brief.

         ANALYSIS

         As best we can understand, the Petitioner now argues for the first time on appeal that due process concerns require tolling of the one-year statute of limitations. The State responds that the post-conviction court properly summarily dismissed the petition as untimely because the Petitioner did not seek tolling of the statute of limitations and made zero factual allegations in his petition addressing the issue of his untimely filing.

         Under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, a claim for post-conviction relief must be filed "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, or ...


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.