Jason Jermaine Dobbins v. State ( 1997 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
June 30, 1997
JASON JERMAINE DOBBINS, )
) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9703-CC-00113
Cecil W. Crowson
Appellant, )
Appellate Court Clerk
) MAURY COUNTY
VS. ) (No. 9534 Below)
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) The Hon. Jim T. Hamilton
)
Appellee. ) (Denial of Post-Conviction Relief -
) Underlying Offense Second-Degree
) Murder)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the
judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals Rules. Specifically, the state argues that the trial court was without
jurisdiction to consider the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief on the merits
because the one-year statute of limitation had run and the appellant cannot prove that his
claim falls within one of the limited exceptions to the one-year statute of limitation under
T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b). The appellant did not file a response to the state’s motion. We find
that the case is not appropriate for affirmance under Rule 20.
At the time the appellant pled guilty to second-degree murder, the Post-
Conviction Procedure Act provided that a petitioner under sentence of a court of
Tennessee had three years from the date of the final action of the highest state appellate
court to which an appeal is taken to file a petition for post-conviction relief. See T.C.A. §
40-30-102 (repealed 1995). Effective May 10, 1995, the statute of limitation was reduced
to one year. See T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a). Consideration of a petition filed after such time
was barred unless the petitioner could show that one of the three enumerated exceptions
applied. See T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b)(1995). Subsequently, on May 13, 1996, the Post-
Conviction Procedure Act was amended to reflect that no court shall have jurisdiction to
consider a petition filed after the one-year statute of limitation unless one of the three
enumerated exceptions applied. See T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b).
While on the face of the record it appears that the appellant failed to file his
petition for post-conviction relief within the one-year statute of limitation, the state did not
make this argument in the trial court. Instead, the state raises this issue for the first time
on appeal. The appellant was not given an opportunity to show that one or more of the
enumerated exceptions set forth in T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b) would be applicable, nor does
the record reflect that the trial court considered the issue of jurisdiction. Consequently,
there are no findings for this Court to review.
Accordingly, based on the appellant’s pleadings, the state’s motion, and the
record in this case, we conclude that the state’s motion to affirm the judgment should be
denied. Instead, we find that the matter should be remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings, specifically, to determine whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider
the appellant’s petition for post-conviction relief on the merits.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the above-styled cause is remanded
to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this order.
ENTER, this the ____ day of June, 1997.
_____________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
_____________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-