Richard Carlton Taylor v. State ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED SEPTEMBER 1999 SESSION October 5, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk RICHARD CARLTON TAYLOR, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9809-CC-00399 Appellant, ) ) COFFEE COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. GERALD L. EWELL, SR., STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction) FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: RICHARD CARLTON TAYLOR, PRO SE MICHAEL E. MOORE 7475 Cockrill Bend Ind. Rd. Solicitor General Nashville, TN 37209-1048 LUCIAN D. GEISE Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Pkwy. Nashville, TN 37243-0493 CHARLES M. LAYNE District Attorney General KENNETH SHELTON Asst. District Attorney General P. O. Box 147 Manchester, TN 37349 ORDER FILED:____________________ AFFIRMED - RULE 20 JOHN H. PEAY, Judge ORDER The petitioner was convicted of robbery and joyriding. The petitioner appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Previous petitions have been filed and heard. On June 29, 1998, petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief in original case number 29,051, the robbery conviction. He also filed a petition to reopen his previous post-conviction in case number 23,721, the joyriding conviction.1 This Court previously dismissed the appeal in original case number 23,721 because it was not filed within ten (10) days of the trial court’s denial of his motion to reopen. See T.C.A. § 40- 30-217(c). In this appeal (the post-conviction relating to the robbery conviction), we find that the petition was not filed within the one year period of limitations as required by our statute. See T.C.A. § 40-30-201(a). Further, the petitioner has alleged no ground that would allow a petition to be filed after the period of limitations has expired. See T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the petition pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. ________________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge 1 The petitio ner h as re vers ed th e off ens es an d num bers in his p etition s and his br iefs in these cases. 2 CONCUR: ________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, Judge ________________________________ JOHN EVERETT W ILLIAMS, Judge 3