Rodriquez v. State ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION December 23, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk ABEL RODRIQUEZ, JR., ) ) APPELLANT, ) ) No. 03-C-01-9612-CR-00463 ) ) Greene County v. ) ) James E. Beckner, Judge ) ) (Post-Conviction Relief) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) APPELLEE, ) FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: Abel Rodriquez, Jr., Pro Se John Knox Walkup Northeast Correctional Center Attorney General & Reporter P.O. Box 500 500 Charlotte Avenue Mountain City, TN 37653-0500 Nashville, TN 37243-0497 Timothy F. Behan Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243-0493 C. Berkley Bell District Attorney General 109 South Main Street Greeneville, TN 37743 OPINION FILED:____________________________________ AFFIRMED Joe B. Jones, Presiding Judge OPINION The appellant, Abel Rodriquez, Jr. (petitioner), appeals as of right from a judgment of the trial court summarily dismissing his action for post-conviction relief. The trial court found the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The petitioner contends the time should be calculated from the time this court’s opinion in State v. Roger Dale Hill, Sr., Wayne County No. 01-C-01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996), was filed -- not from the date of his conviction. He argues Hill created new law, and the indictment in his case, like the indictment in Hill, was void because it did not allege the requisite mens rea. The trial court properly found the statute of limitations barred this action. Moreover, the indictment in this case was adequate. It mirrors the indictment in Hill. The supreme court recently held the indictment in Hill passed constitutional, statutory, and common law muster. State v. Hill, _____ S.W.2d _____ (Tenn. 1997) (opinion filed in Nashville on November 3, 1997). After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issue presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. _____________________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE CONCUR: ______________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE ______________________________________ CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE 2