IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
JUNE SESSION, 1998 FILED
August 17, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
BOBBY E. BAKER, JR., ) Appellate C ourt Clerk
) No. 03C01-9710-CR-00439
Appellee )
) KNOX COUNTY
vs. )
) Hon. RAY L. JENKINS, Judge
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) (Post-Conviction)
Appellant )
For the Appellant: For the Appellee:
Bobby E. Baker, Pro Se John Knox Walkup
#13835-074 Attorney General and Reporter
P.O. Box 4000
Manchester, KY 40962
Sandy C. Patrick
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243-0493
Randall E. Nichols
District Attorney General
City-County Building
Knoxville, TN 37902
OPINION FILED:
AFFIRMED
David G. Hayes
Judge
OPINION
The appellant, Bobby E. Baker, Jr., appeals the Knox County Criminal Court’s
summary dismissal of his pro se petition for post-conviction relief.
After review, we affirm.
On June 8, 1992, the appellant entered guilty pleas in the Knox County
Criminal Court to one count of burglary, three counts of aggravated burglary, and
one count of aggravated assault. As a result of these convictions, the appellant
received an effective ten year sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction.
On May 8, 1997, the appellant filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief. The
petition collaterally attacks his convictions upon grounds that the pleas did not
constitute an intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Boykin v.
Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242; 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711 (1969); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304
U.S. 458, 464; 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 (1938). Specifically, he contends that he was
suffering from “memory loss, hallucinations and tremors” as a result of cocaine
addiction and, therefore, his guilty pleas were not knowingly entered. The appellant
is currently an inmate at the federal correctional facility in Manchester, Kentucky.
He challenges the validity of his state convictions which were used to enhance his
federal sentences for which he is now incarcerated. On May 16, 1997, the post-
conviction court dismissed the appellant’s petition, citing the following ground: “A
Petition raising the identical grounds was dismissed on April 16, 1997 as time
barred. That order was not appealed and became final. This Petition is
DISMISSED.”1
1
Tenn . Code A nn. § 40- 30-202 (c)(199 7) provide s that no m ore than one petition for post-
con viction relief m ay be f iled at tack ing a s ingle j udg me nt, an d m and ates that th e trial c ourt s hall
summarily dismiss any second or subsequent petition if a prior petition was filed and resolved on
the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. We note that this provision would not apply in the
present case because the appellant’s previous petition was not resolved on the merits. On the
contrary, there was no need to address the merits of the petition because it was time-barred.
2
The appellant does not contest the fact that the limitation period had expired
prior to the filing of his petition. Rather, he argues that invalid convictions cannot or
should not be used to enhance subsequent sentences and the imposition of “time
limits” upon such challenges infringes upon a defendant’s due process rights. The
Tennessee Supreme Court has previously determined that statutes of limitations are
constitutional. In Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204, 207 (Tenn. 1992), the Court
opined that “it is clear that the State has a legitimate interest in preventing the
litigation of stale or fraudulent claims” (citing Jimenez v. Weinberger, 417 U.S. 628,
636, 94 S.Ct. 2496, 2501 (1974)). To facilitate this interest, the Court further stated
that “a state may erect reasonable procedural requirements for triggering the right to
an adjudication, such as statutes of limitations, and a state may terminate a claim
for failure to comply with a reasonable procedural rule without violating due process
rights.” Burford, 845 S.W.2d at 207 (citing Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455
U.S. 422, 437, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 1158 (1982)). Moreover, in Carter v. State, 917
S.W.2d 417, 420 (Tenn. 1997), the Court upheld as constitutional the new one-year
statute of limitations enacted in 1995, finding that the statute adequately protected
the rights of those who file petitions for post-conviction relief. This issue is without
merit.
At the time the appellant’s convictions became final, June 8, 1992, the statute
of limitations applicable to post-conviction proceedings was three years. Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (repealed 1995). In 1995, the legislature reduced the
statutory period for filing post-conviction petitions from three years to one year.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(a) (1995 Supp.). As a result, the new Post-
Conviction Procedure Act governs this petition and all petitions filed after May 10,
1995. Because the previous three-year statute of limitations had not expired at the
time the new Act went into effect, his right to petition for post-conviction relief
survived under the new Act. See Carter v. State, 952 S.W.2d 417, 420 (Tenn.
1997). Therefore, the appellant had until May 10, 1996, or one year from the
3
effective date of the new Act, to file for post-conviction relief. Compiler’s Notes,
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 (1997); see also Daniels v. State, No. 03C01-9606-
CC-00244 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Feb. 27, 1997), perm. to appeal denied,
(Tenn. Sept. 29, 1997). The appellant filed this petition almost one year after the
statute had run. Moreover, the grounds raised in this petition and on appeal do not
fall within any of the exceptions to the statute of limitations set out in Tenn. Code
Ann. § 40-30-202(b)(1), (2), or (3) (1997). Accordingly, dismissal of the appellant’s
petition was mandated under the provisions of the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure
Act.2
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
____________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, Judge
CONCUR:
____________________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, Judge
____________________________________
JOSEPH M. TIPTON, Judge
2
Tenn . Code A nn. § 40- 30-206 (b) (199 7) (em phasis a dded) p rovides in p ertinent pa rt:
If it plainly appears from the face of the petition, any annexed exhibits or the prior
proceedings in the case that the petition was not filed in the court of conviction or
within the time set forth in the statute of limitations, . . ., the judge sha ll enter an
order dismissing the petition.
4