Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
ANTONIO L. FULLER
STATE OF TENNESSEE
Assigned on Briefs August 27, 2019, at Knoxville
from the Criminal Court for Davidson County Nos. 94-C-1472,
94-C-1486 Angelita Blackshear Dalton, Judge.
petitioner, Antonio L. Fuller, appeals the dismissal of his
post-conviction petition, arguing the post-conviction court
erred in dismissing the petition as time-barred. Following
our review, we affirm the post-conviction court's
dismissal of the petition.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Antonio L. Fuller, Hartsville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ruth
Anne Thompson, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Glenn Funk,
District Attorney General; and Amy Hunter, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Ross Dyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Camille R. McMullen and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
ROSS DYER, JUDGE.
and Procedural History
November 10, 1994, the petitioner pleaded guilty to
possession of twenty-six or more grams of cocaine and
possession of less than five grams of hydromorphone. He
received an effective sentence of eight years and was placed
on community corrections for five years. No appeal was taken
from the petitioner's convictions and sentence.
January 4, 2019, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for
post-conviction relief, arguing his plea was involuntary and
unknowing because he was not advised of his right against
self-incrimination. Additionally, the petitioner states these
prior convictions were used to sentence him as a Range II,
multiple offender in 2001. The post-conviction court
dismissed the petition with a written order finding the
petition was time-barred and no exceptions were presented to
toll the statute of limitations. This timely appeal followed.
appeal, the petitioner argues he is entitled to due process
tolling of his post-conviction claims, alleging they were
untimely due to attorney misconduct. He also argues his
petition is timely because the judgment forms in this case do
not have a "file-stamp" date. The State contends
the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition as
untimely, and the petitioner has waived his claim that the
petition is timely because the judgment forms are not
post-conviction petitioner has one year from "the date
of the final action of the highest state appellate
court" in which to file a petition for relief. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a). If no appeal is taken, the
petition must be filed within one year of the date on which
the judgment becomes final. Id. "Time is of the
essence of the right to file a petition for post-conviction
relief." Id. Untimely filing of a
post-conviction petition extinguishes a petitioner's
post-conviction claims. Id. A trial ...