IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
AUGUST 1998 SESSION October 6, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
BILLY JOE LINTICUM, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9710-CR-00458
)
Appellant, ) HAMILTON COUNTY NO. 210653
)
VS. ) HON. STEPHEN M. BEVIL,
) JUDGE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) AFFIRMED - RULE 20
Appellee. )
ORDER
The petitioner was convicted by a jury of first degree murder in 1975 and
sentenced to death. This Court affirmed the conviction, but the sentence was
commuted to life imprisonment by executive action. Hamilton v. State, 555 S.W.2d
724 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1977).
The petitioner filed a pro-se petition for post-conviction relief on May 9, 1996,
alleging that the "reasonable doubt" jury instruction given at his trial violated his
constitutional rights. Counsel was appointed, and an amended petition was filed.
After a hearing, the trial court dismissed the petition finding the jury instruction did
not violate the petitioner's rights.
First, the petitioner's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The
petitioner's claims fall under the purview of the former Post-Conviction Procedure
Act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (repealed 1995). The prior act provided a three-
year statute of limitation commencing on July 1, 1986, for offenses which had
received final action from the highest state appellate court to which an appeal was
taken prior to that date. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (repealed 1995). As the
Tennessee Supreme Court denied certiorari on the petitioner's direct appeal August
1, 1977, the statute of limitations for the petitioner expired July 1, 1989.
Were the petition not time barred, the petitioner's argument is without merit.
The "moral certainty" language complained of has withstood constitutional
challenges. See Carter v. State, 958 S.W.2d 620, 626 (Tenn. 1997); State v.
Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722, 734 (Tenn. 1994).
It is, therefore, ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed in
accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Costs are taxed
to the state as the petitioner is indigent.
_________________________
JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE
___________________________
THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE