No. W2006-00576-CCA-R3-PC.Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson.
Filed February 1, 2007.
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Tipton County; No. 3536; JoeH. Walker, III, Judge.
Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of theCourt of Criminal Appeals.
Teddrick Willamson, pro se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General Reporter; Brian Clay Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee.
ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID G. HAYES AND J.C. MCLIN, JJ. joined.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE.
The Petitioner, Teddrick Williamson, appeals the lower court’s denialof his petition for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motionrequesting that this Court affirm the trial court pursuant to Rule 20,Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed hispetition outside the applicable statute of limitation and the petitionis, therefore, time-barred. Accordingly, we affirm the court’sdismissal.
On August 25, 1998, a Tipton County jury convicted the Petitioner ofespecially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Petitioneron September 17, 1998, to twenty-two years in the Tennessee Departmentof Correction. The Petitioner’s conviction and sentence were affirmed bythis Court on direct appeal. See State v. Teddrick Williams, No.W1999-00055-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn.Crim.App., at Jackson, Apr. 27,2000), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Dec. 4, 2000).
Petitioner Williamson filed a petition for post-conviction relief onFebruary 2, 2006, in the Tipton County Circuit Court. As grounds forrelief, the Petitioner asserted that the State had withheld exculpatoryevidence, the jury was unconstitutionally selected and impaneled, theevidence was obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest, and counsel wasineffective. The Petitioner also claimed that he recently obtained newevidence to support his claims “on or about May 2005” when his motherobtained his criminal records from the Tipton County Circuit CourtClerk’s Office. By order entered February 3, 2006, the lower courtdismissed the petition as untimely. A timely notice of appeal documentwas filed on February 22, 2006.
On appeal to this Court, the Petitioner asserts that thepost-conviction court erred by failing to appoint counsel and bysummarily dismissing the petition. He further asserts that thepost-conviction court was not qualified to preside over the hearing. ThePetitioner does not, however, address the basis of the lower court’sdecision, the timeliness of the petition. The State has filed a motionrequesting that this Court affirm the lower court’s denial ofpost-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Courtof Criminal Appeals. As basis for its motion, the State asserts that thepetition is time-barred. The State further asserts that the Petitioner’sreliance upon his claim of “new exculpatory evidence” is unsupported bythe bleak reference to the “lineup photograph” and, therefore, fails toprovide an exception to the timely filing requirement.
Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(a), a person incustody under a sentence of a court of this state must petition forpost-conviction relief within one year of the date of the final actionof the highest state appellate court to which an appeal is taken or, ifno appeal is taken, within one year of the date on which the judgmentbecomes final. The statute emphasizes that “[t]ime is of the essence ofthe right to file a petition for post-conviction relief or motion toreopen established by this chapter, and the one-year limitations periodis an element of the right to file such an action and is a conditionupon its exercise.” T. C. A. § 40-30-102(a).
Additionally, Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102(b), providesthat the trial court does not have jurisdiction to consider a petitionfor post-conviction relief if it was filed outside the one-year statuteof limitations unless (1) the claim in the petition is based upon afinal ruling of an appellate court establishing a constitutional rightthat was not recognized as existing at the time of trial, ifretrospective application of that right is required; (2) the claim inthe petition is based upon new scientific evidence establishing thatsuch petitioner is actually innocent of the offense or offenses forwhich the petitioner was convicted; or (3) the claim in the petitionseeks relief from a sentence that was enhanced because of a previousconviction and such conviction in the case in which the claim isasserted was not a guilty plea with an agreed sentence, and the previousconviction has subsequently been held to be invalid. T.C.A. §40-30-102(b). In the present case, Petitioner argues that he is entitledto post-conviction relief based on newly discovered evidence in thealleged form of a photographic lineup when his mother discovered thesame in his criminal records filed at the county clerk’s office. Thisphotographic lineup cannot be construed as scientific evidence.Additionally, we cannot conclude that these particular factualcircumstances toll the limitations period. The Petitioner’spost-conviction petition was not filed until February 2, 2006, wellbeyond the one-year statute of limitations. The grounds for reliefalleged by Petitioner do not fall within any of the exceptions to thestatute of limitations. Where there is no applicable exception, “theright to file a petition for post-conviction relief or a motion toreopen under this chapter shall be extinguished upon the expiration ofthe limitations period.” T.C.A. § 40-30-102(a). Accordingly, Petitionerhas failed to state a cognizable claim for post-conviction relief. Weconclude that the lower court properly determined that the petition wastime-barred. Accordingly, it is ordered that the State’s motion isgranted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance withRule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.