IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE FILED
DECEMB ER SESSION, 1997 March 26, 1998
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
HAROLD VERNON SMITH, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9704-CR-00130
)
Appe llant, )
)
) HAWKINS COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. JAMES E. BECKNER
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)
ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE
CRIMINAL COURT OF HAWKINS COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
HAROLD VERNON SMITH JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter
Ann X N.E.C.C.
P.O. Box 5000 SANDY COPOUS PATRICK
Mountain City, TN 37683-5000 Assistant Attorney General
425 5th Avenu e North
Nashville, TN 37243
C. BERKELEY BELL
District Attorney General
DOUG GODBEE
Assistant District Attorney General
Courthouse, Main Street
Rogersville, TN 37857
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
ORDER
The Petitioner, Harold Vernon Smith, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of
his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The is the latest installment of his
collateral challenges to his life sentence as an habitual criminal. In his petition,
he argued that the indictments for the underlying offenses failed to charge
essential elements of the offenses. The trial court dism issed the petition. W e
conclude that the Appellant is not entitled to post-conviction relief and we
therefo re affirm the trial c ourt’s o rder of dism issal.
The Petitioner was convicted of five counts of armed robbery on June 15,
1981 and sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual criminal. The convictions
were affirmed by this Court on June 11, 1982 and the supreme court denied
permission to appe al on Se ptemb er 7, 198 2. State v. S mith, 639 S.W.2d 677
(Tenn. Crim. App.) perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1982). The Petitioner filed the
current petition for post-conviction relief on January 2 4, 1997. Th e trial court
dismissed the petition without a hearing on February 28, 1997, finding that it was
barred by the statute of limitations. The Petitioner now appeals.
The new P ost-C onvictio n Pro cedu re Act g overn s this pe tition and all
petitions filed after Ma y 10, 199 5. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq.
(Supp. 1996). T his Act pro vides, in pe rtinent part, that “notwithstanding any other
provision of this part to the contrary, any person having ground for relief
recognized under this part shall have at least one (1) year from May 10 , 1995, to
file a petition or a m otion to reope n a pe tition un der this part.” C omp iler’s Notes
-2-
to Ten n. Cod e Ann. § 40-30-2 01 (Su pp. 199 6) (referring to Acts 1995, ch. 207,
§ 3). The convictions in question became final on September 7, 1982. The
previous three-yea r statute of lim itations be gan to run for the Petition er on J uly
1, 1986, and expired on July 1, 1989. As a result, the Petitioner was already
barred by the previo us statute of limitations on the da te the new Act took effect,
May 10, 1995. See Carter v. S tate, 952 S.W . 2d 417 (Tenn. 1997). Nor does the
Petition er’s claim fit within any of the statutorily-recognized exceptions to the
statute of limitations . See Tenn.C ode Ann . § 40-30-202 (b)--(c) (Supp.199 6).
Thus, the trial c ourt did not err in finding that the petition was barred by the
statute of limitations.
Even if we were to addre ss the Petition er’s cla im on its me rits, we w ould
conclude that it has no merit. In support of his petition and argument, the
Petitioner relies primarily upon the decision of this Co urt in State v. Rog er Da le
Hill, C.C.A. No. 01C01-9508 -CC-0 0267, W ayne C ounty (T enn. C rim. App .,
Nashville, June 20, 1996). We first note that this Court’s decision in Hill was
based upon an inte rpreta tion of o ur new crimin al cod e, and this code is
applic able only to offenses occurring after November 1, 1989. Secondly, our
supreme court has reversed th is Court’s decision in Hill. See State v. Hill, 954
S.W .2d 725 (Te nn. 1997).
In the case sub judice, we have examined the language of the challenged
indictment and we conclude that the indictment adequately alleged the criminal
offenses charged and sufficiently informed the Petitioner of the charges against
him such that the convicting court had jurisdiction. We see no reason for further
discussion or analysis. The Petitioner’s convictions are not void. T hus, h is
-3-
petition presen ts no cognizable claim for the purposes of post-conviction relief or
habeas corpus relief. See Charle s Edwa rd Orren v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-
9704-CR-00141, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 13, 199 8);
Georg e F. Jones , Jr. v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00062, Johnson
Coun ty (Tenn. Crim. App., Kn oxville, Feb. 3 , 1998); Randy B laine Knight v.
Carlton, W arden, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00162, Johnson County (Tenn.
Crim. App., Kn oxville, Jan. 2 6, 1998 ); Perry C . Riley v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-
9705-CR-00181, Morgan County (Te nn. Crim. Ap p., Knoxville, Jan. 23, 19 98);
Roy A. Burch v. State, C.C.A. N o. 03C 01-961 0-CR -00391 , Johnson County,
(Tenn. Crim. App., Kn oxville, Jan. 1 6, 1998 ); State v. Dare l G. Bo lin, C.C.A. No.
03C01-9212-CR-00450, Cumberland County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan.
15, 199 8); Josep h Ron ald Duc los v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00182,
Morgan County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan. 16, 1998);State v. Rogers L.
McKinley, C.C.A . No. 03C 01-961 2-CR -00455 , Bledsoe County (Tenn. Crim.
App., Knoxville, Ja n. 6, 1998 ); Timo thy W ayne Jo hnson v. Bowlen, Warden,
C.C.A. No. 03C01-9611-CR-00443, Bledsoe County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville,
Dec. 23, 199 7); Darryl D ouglas Sheets v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9701-CR-
00031, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Kn oxville, Dec . 23, 1997 ); Jerry Cox
v. State,C.C.A. No. 03C0 1-9610 -CR-0 0392, J ohnso n Cou nty (Ten n. Crim. A pp.,
Knoxville, Dec. 23 , 1997); Bruce B elk v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9703-CR-
00109, Morga n Cou nty (Ten n. Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Dec. 23 , 1997); Abel
Rodriguez, Jr. v. State,C.C.A. No. 03 C01-9 612-C R-004 63, Gre ene C ounty
(Tenn. Crim. App., Kn oxville, Dec . 23, 1997 ); Don ald Wa yne Ho lt v. State, C.C.A.
No. 03C01-9702-CR-00059, Johnson Cou nty (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec.
23, 1997); Gene Hibbard v. State, C.C.A . No. 03C01-9702-CR-00077, Knox
County (T enn. Crim. A pp., Knoxville, Dec. 23 , 1997).
-4-
W e conc lude th at no e rror of la w requ iring a reversal o f the jud gme nt is
apparent on the re cord. Ba sed up on a tho rough re ading o f the record , the briefs
of the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, the
judgment of the tria l court is affirme d in ac corda nce w ith Rule 20 of the Court of
Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.
____________________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
___________________________________
THOMAS T. WOODAL, JUDGE
-5-