State v. Mario Campbell

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
MARIO CAMPBELL, )
)
Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9705-CR-00197
)
vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY
)
STATE OF TENNESSEE,
Respondent.
) No. P-17986
)
)
FILED
September 09, 1997
ORDER Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
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, Rules of the Court
of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner was convicted of second degree murder on
February 1, 1995, and aggravated assault on May 25, 1995. Subsequently, on January
28, 1997, the petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging the
voluntariness of his guilty pleas and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial
court dismissed the petition without appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing
upon a finding that the petition was barred by the one-year statute of limitation. We
agree.
Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a), a petitioner must petition for post-
conviction relief within one year of the date of the final action of the highest state
appellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, within one year of
the date on which the judgment became final. The Compiler’s Notes to T.C.A. § 40-30-
201 state that the 1995 Post-Conviction Act governs all petitions for post-conviction
relief filed after May 10, 1995. Moreover, the Compiler’s Notes indicate that any person
having ground for relief recognized under this part shall have at least one year from
May 10, 1995, to file a petition or a motion to reopen a petition under this part.
Under T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b), a court does not have jurisdiction to
consider a petition for post-conviction relief if it was filed outside the one-year statute of
limitation unless (1) the claim in the petition is based upon a final ruling of an appellate
court establishing a constitutional right that was not recognized at the time of trial, if
retrospective application of that right is required, (2) the claim in the petition is based
upon new scientific evidence establishing that such petitioner is actually innocent of the
offense or offenses for which the petitioner was convicted, or (3) the claim in the
petition seeks relief from a sentence that was enhanced because of a previous
conviction and such conviction in the case in which the claim is asserted was not a
guilty plea with an agreed sentence, and the previous conviction has subsequently
been held to be invalid.
In the present case, the petitioner filed his petition for post-conviction
relief on January 28, 1997. Accordingly, the petition is governed by the 1995 Post-
Conviction Act, and the petition was filed outside the statute of limitation set forth in
T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a). Moreover, the petitioner has failed to show that any of his
claims fall within one of the exceptions set forth in T.C.A. § 40-30-202(b).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of
the trial court under Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals, is granted, and the
judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Enter, this the ___ day of August, 1997.
_____________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
_____________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
_____________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
2