Willie J. Odom v. State ( 1999 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
FEBRUARY SESS ION, 1999 May 25, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
WILLIE J. ODUM, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9803-CR-00107
)
Appe llant, )
)
) KNOX COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. MARY BETH LEIBOWITZ
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
WIL LIE J. O DOM JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter
7475 Cockrill Bend Ind. Rd.
Nashville, TN 37243 MICH AEL J . FAHE Y, III
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243
RANDALL E. NICHOLS
District Attorney General
FRED BRIGHT
Assistant District Attorney
City-County Building
Knoxivlle, TN 37902
ORDER FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
ORDER
The petitioner, Willie J. Odom, appeals the order of the Kno x Coun ty
Criminal Court sum marily dismissing his post-conviction petition without an
evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. Odom pled guilty in April 1996 to one
(1) count of aggravated robbery and received a sentence of eight (8) ye ars. In
January 1998, he filed the present petition alleging that counsel was ineffective,
his guilty plea was not voluntary and he received an illegal sentence. The trial
court dismissed the petition as barred by the one (1) year statute of limitations.
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(a). After a review of the record before this
Court, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
The petitioner claims his guilty plea to aggravated robbery violated
principles of double jeopardy in that he also pled guilty in federal court to offenses
arising out of the same incident. He argues that his conviction for aggravated
robbery is void due to double jeopardy, and his sentence receive d as a result of
such void co nviction is, therefore, illegal. Because an illegal sentence may be
corrected at any time, see State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 197 8),
the petitioner contends that the statute of limita tions d oes n ot app ly in this case.
We disagree.
This state adheres to the principle of dua l sovereignty in that “succ essive
prosecutions by different sovereigns do not subject [a defendant] to double
jeopard y.” State v. Straw, 626 S.W.2d 286, 287 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981); see
also State v. Wyche, 914 S.W.2d 558, 561 (Tenn. C rim. App. 199 5).
Furthermore, the petitioner’s Range I sentence of eight (8) years for a Class B
felony is a leg al senten ce. See Tenn. C ode Ann . § 40-35-112 (2).
-2-
The post-conviction petition was filed outside of the one (1) year statute of
limitations, and the petitioner has cited no reason to justify tolling the statute.
See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(b). As a result, the trial court was without
jurisdiction to consider the petition and properly dismissed the petition without an
evidentiary hearing . Tenn. Co de Ann. § 4 0-30-206(b ).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDER ED that the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Crimin al Appe als Rule s. It
appearing that the petitioner is indigent, costs will be paid by the State of
Tennessee.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
___________________________________
L. TERRY LAFFERTY, SPECIAL JUDGE
-3-