IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
APRIL SESSION, 1998 August 17, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
Sam uel L ee T alley, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9702-CR-00063
)
Appe llant, )
)
) Hamilton COUNTY
VS. )
) Hon. Stephen M. Bevil. JUDGE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
Appellee. ) (Post Conviction - Sentencing)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
SAMUEL LEE TALLEY JOHN KNOX WALKUP
W.T.H.S.F. Attorney General and Reporter
P. O. Box 1050
Henning, TN 38041-1050 SANDY C. PATRICK
Assistant Attorney General
425 Fifth Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243-0943
BILL COX
District Attorney General
600 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-1972
ORDER FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
ORDER
In this appe al of the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition
Appe llant, Samu el Lee Talley, as ks this Court to re view the validity of h is
conviction entered on July 17 , 1991. A ppellant w as foun d guilty of the offense
of especially aggra vated robbe ry. The court fixed his s entence at twe nty-five
years in the De partment o f Correction as a Range I S tandard O ffender.
Appellant argues that the trial court improperly dismissed his petition for
post conviction relief as being outside th e statute of limitations period. Appellant
was convicted in 1991; he did not file for post conviction relief until 1996. At the
time petitioner pled guilty, he had three years in which to file a petition for post
conviction relief. He faile d to do so. In 1995, the legislature repealed the former
Post-Conviction Procedure Act; the new act, which governs this petition, replaced
the three year statute of limitations with a one year statu te. Tenn . Code . Ann. §
49-30-201 Compiler’s Notes; Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202. Thus, Petitioner had
until May 10, 1996 to file his petition for relief. His petition filed July 1, 1996, was
not timely filed. Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-20 2(a), Courts ha ve
jurisdiction to consider late pe titions only if the claim is based on a previously
unrecognized constitutional right, new scientific evidence establishes the
petitioner’s innocence, or the sentence was enhanced because of a pervious
conviction which was subsequently invalidated. Appellant’s petition does not fall
into any of these ca tegories. Thu s the petition for post-conviction relief was
properly dismissed.
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in all respects
pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
-2-
Beca use it a ppea rs to the Cour t that Ap pellan t, Sam uel Le e Ta lley, is
indigent, costs will be paid by the State.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
___________________________________
CURWOOD WITT, JUDGE
-3-