IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE
FILED
December 29, 1999
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate Court Clerk
DAVID STOVALL, )
) C.C.A. NO. M1999- 00937-CCA-R3-PC
Appellant, ) (No. 7482 Below)
) MAURY COU NTY
VS. )
) The Hon. Jim T. Hamilton
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) (Dismissal of Post-Conviction Petition)
Appellee. )
) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
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. Having reviewed the petitioner’s brief, the state’s motion, and the
record on appeal, the Court finds that the motion is well taken.
On January 6, 1992, the petitioner pled guilty to one count of aggravate d robbery,
two counts of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated rape, and two counts of
aggravated assault, and he received an effective sentence of 35 years in the Tennessee
Department of Correction. Thereafter, on August 19, 1992, the petitioner filed a petition for
post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed the petition on January 11, 1994, and the
judgment was affirmed by this Court on appeal. See David Stovall v. State, No. 01C01-9401-
CC-00022 (Tenn. Crim . App., at Na shville, Jan. 5, 1 995). No ap plication for permission to
appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, on January 2 5, 1999, the petitioner filed a “Motion fo r Delayed
Appeal,” which was denied by the trial court on August 11, 1999. Th e petitioner no w appeals
the trial court’s ruling. Specifically, he contends that he is entitled to a delayed application for
permission to appeal to th e Suprem e Court bec ause post- conviction counsel failed to file an
application for permission to appeal pursuant to T.R.A.P. 11 and failed to withdraw as counsel
pursuant to T.R.A.P. 14.
As pointed out by the state, a delayed appeal may be granted under T.C.A. §
40-30-213 when a petitioner has been denied his right to appeal from his original conviction.
See Rule 28, § 9(D). The statute does not allow for delayed appeals from the denial of post-
conviction relief. Moreover, the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act does not contemplate the
filing of successive petitions. The filing of only one petition for post-conviction relief attacking
a single judgment is contemplated by T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c). Finally, the petitioner was not
entitled to effective assistance of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding. House v. State, 911
S.W.2d 705 (Tenn. 1995).
Accordingly, this Court finds that the state’s m otion to aff irm the ju dgmen t should
be granted.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the judgment
of the trial cou rt under Rule 20, Tenne ssee Cou rt of Crim inal Appeals Rules, is granted, and
the judgm ent of the tria l court is affirmed. It appearing that the petitioner is indigent, costs of
these proceedings are taxed to the state.
_____________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
_____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-2-