State v. Lewis Moorlet ( 2010 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
APRIL 1997 SESSION
LEWIS MOORLET, )
)
Appellant, ) No. 02C01-9605-CR-00175
)
) Shelby County
v. )
) Honorable James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) (Post-Conviction)
)
Appellee. )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Lewis Moorlet, Pro Se Charles W. Burson
Cold Creek Correctional Facility Attorney General of Tennessee
P.O. Box 10000 and
Henning, TN 38041-1000 M. Allison Thompson
Assistant Attorney General of Tennessee
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
John W. Pierotti, Jr.
District Attorney General
and
Janet Shipman
Assistant District Attorney General
201 Poplar Avenue
Memphis, TN 38103-1947
OPINION FILED:____________________
AFFIRMED
Joseph M. Tipton
Judge
OPINION
The petitioner, Lewis Moorlet, appeals as of right from the Shelby County
Criminal Court’s dismissal of his second petition for post-conviction relief relative to his
1988 conviction for first degree murder and resulting life sentence. The petitioner
contends that the trial court erred in dismissing the petition without providing him
counsel, the opportunity to amend the petition, and an evidentiary hearing upon his
petition. We disagree.
The petitioner’s conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. James
Morning Craft, Jr., and Lewis Moorlet, No. 31, Shelby County (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 8,
1989), app. denied (Tenn. Aug. 7, 1989). The petitioner filed a petition for post-
conviction relief that was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The denial was affirmed
on appeal. Lewis Moorlet v. State, No. 02C01-9405-CR-00090 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov.
30, 1994).
In this case, the petitioner filed his second petition for post-conviction
relief on April 18, 1996. The trial court found that the petitioner had previously filed and
litigated a post-conviction case. It concluded that pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c),
the fact that the petitioner had a previous post-conviction case resolved on the merits
barred the petitioner from filing a second one. The petition was dismissed.
The petition filed in this case complains about the petitioner’s prior post-
conviction attorney not being aware of certain constitutional violations and not
appealing the first post-conviction case.1 The constitutional violation alleged is that the
petitioner’s indictment was invalid in that the first degree murder statute was void
because the bill enacting it embraced more than one subject not covered in the title of
1
This allega tion in dica tes th at the petitio ner m ay hav e bee n una ware of the appe al of h is
first post-conviction case to this court as previously noted.
2
the bill. See Tenn. Const. art. II, § 17. The petitioner also complains about erroneous
information sent to the Department of Correction.
Pursuant to the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedures Act, petitioners are
limited to only one post-conviction case. T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c). Any further relief must
be obtained through a motion to reopen under T.C.A. § 40-30-217. The procedures
required for such a motion are strict and the grounds for reopening are quite limited.
See id. The petitioner’s pleading in the present case meets neither the procedural nor
the substantive requirements for such a motion.
In consideration of the foregoing and the record before us, the judgment
of the trial court is affirmed.
______________________________
Joseph M. Tipton, Judge
CONCUR:
___________________________
David G. Hayes, Judge
___________________________
William M. Barker, Judge
3