IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
STANLEY ADAMS, )
Petitioner,
)
) FILED
) SHELBY COUNTY
v. ) C.C.A. No. March 22, 2000
) W1999-02741-CCA-R3-PC
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate Court Clerk
Respondent. )
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the state’s motion, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules
of the Court of Criminal Appeals, to affirm the trial court’s judgment by order rather than
formal opinion. This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s
third petition for post-conviction relief. In 1991, the petitioner was convicted of second
degree murder and aggravated robbery, and sentenced to 45 years as a Range III
offender. The petitioner subsequently filed two petitions for post-conviction relief
attacking this conviction. The trial court denied both petitions and this Court affirmed
the denials on appeal. See Stanley Adams v. State, Shelby County, No. 02C01-9208-
CR-00184 (Tenn. Crim. App., filed February 10, 1993, at Jackson); Stanley Adams v.
State, Shelby County, No. 02C01-9505-CR-00142 (Tenn. Crim. App., filed February 18,
1997, at Jackson).
On March 2, 1999, the petitioner filed the present petition for post-conviction
relief. The petitioner raises the issues of ineffective assistance of counsel and the
validity of his pleas, which are the same issues he raised in his previous petitions.
Finding that the petitioner had previously filed two petitions for post-conviction relief and
that the present petition is time barred, the trial court dismissed the petition.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(c) provides that no more than one petition for
post-conviction relief may be filed attacking a single judgment, and mandates that the
trial court shall summarily dismiss any second or subsequent petition if a prior petition
was filed and resolved on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. Since the
petitioner previously filed two petitions that were resolved on the merits by the trial court
and by this Court on appeal, the petitioner’s present petition was properly dismissed.
Additionally, after reviewing the entire record on appeal, we find that the petitioner’s
claim does not fall within one of the limited circumstances under which a prior petition
may be re-opened. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-217.
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the
petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that
the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the
Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing that the petitioner is indigent, costs of this
appeal shall be taxed to the state.
______________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
______________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
______________________________
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE