### IN THE COURT OFCRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs Jul y 14 , 200 9 LEA H JOY WARD v. STA TE OFTEN NES SEE D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C rim ina l C o u rt fo r S h elb y C o u n ty N o. 03- 04434 W . O t i s H i ggs , Jr. , Judge

N o. W 2009- 00088- C C A - R 3- P C - F i l ed F ebruary 11, 2010

Pr o s e Pet i t i onerL eah J oy W ar d f i l ed a pe t i t i on for pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef , as s er t i ng s he w as deni ed ef fect i ve as s i s t ance of

couns el r es ul t i ng i n herco n v i c t i o n f o rf i r s td egr ee pr em edi t at ed m ur der

. T he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t concl uded t hat her pet i t i on w as bar r ed by t he s t at ut e of l i m i t a t i o n s a n d d e n i e d i twi t h o u ta h e a r i n g . Sh e a p p e a l s , a r g u i n g d u e p r o c e s s c o n cer ns s h o u l d t o l l t h e s t a t u t e o f l i mi t a t i o n s . W e a f

f i r m. Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3 Appealas of R i ght ; Judg m e nt of

t he C r i m i nal C our t i s A f f i r m e d. N OR MA M C G EE O GLE , J

. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he cour t , i n w hi ch J OH N E V ER ETT W I LLI AMS and A LAN E. G LEN N , J J

. , j oi ned. L eah J oy W ar d, M em phi s , T ennes s ee, pr o s e. R ober tE

. C oo p er, Jr

. , A t t or neyG ener al and R epor t er ; L es l i e E. Pr i ce, A s s i s t antA t t or ney G ener al ; W i l l i am L

. G i bbons , D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al ; and R ache l E

. W i ll is, A s s i s t ant D i s t r i ctA t t or neyG ener al , fort he appe l l ee, St at e of Tennes s ee.

OP I NI ON I . Fac t ual Backg r ound Pet i t i onerw as t r i ed and co n v i ct ed of f i r s tdegr ee m ur derof

herhus band and w as s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent
. T hi s cour t af f i r m ed herconvi ct i on on M ay 30, 2007. See St at e v. L eah J oy W ar d, N o. W 2005- 02802- C C A

- R 3- C D , 2007 W L 1556663, at*1 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. atJ acks on)

. A ccor di ng t o Pet i t i oner , sh e d id notf i l e a t i m el y appl i cat i on for r evi ew i n our s upr em e cour tbeca us e her appel l at e couns el es s ent i al l y abandone d herand s he di d notl ear n of

our deci s i on unt i l “ar ound D ece m ber2007. ” U pon l ear ni ng of our deci s i on,O n April 2 5, 2 00 8, P etitio ner al so f il edac ompl ai nt

a gain st h er app el lateatt orne y w ith th e B oard 1 of Profession al R espon sibility. Th e B .P. R. ultim ately publicly censured P etitioner’s appellate coun sel for his lap ses inher case and another, similar o ne. -2- Pet i t i onerf

i l ed a t ar dy appl i cat i on for rev iew i n t he s upr em e cour ti n A pr i l , 2008. H er 1 appl i cat i on w as deni ed on Sept em ber15, 2008. Pet i t i onerf

i l ed t he pr es ent pet i t i on on O ct ober 28, 2008. I n i t , Pet i t i oneral l eges t hat her tw o tr ial at t or neys w er e i nef fect i ve bec aus e t hey: ( 1) fai l ed t o or dera s econd m ent al eval uat i on for her af

t er s he al l egedl y endur ed a pos t

- ar r es tr ape a nd r el at ed pr egnanc y; ( 2) fa iled to fu lly in v e stig a te th e fa c ts o f h e r c a se a n d c a ll c e rta in w itn e ss e s; (3 ) fa iled to s uf f i ci ent l y at t ack a St at e’ s w i t nes s ’ al l eged per j ur y; ( 4) fai l ed t o pr event t he j u ry fr om h e a rin g a b o u t P e tit io n e r’s p rio r fed e ra l c o n v ictio n ; (5 ) faile d to a d e q u a tely c o m m u n ica te w i t h Pet i t i onerr egar di ng t he tr i al ; and ( 6) fai l ed t o s uppr es s an i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at em ent Pet i t i onerm ade t o i nves t i gat or s . She al s o cont ends t hat her convi ct i on w as t he pr oductof p e rju re d a n d im p ro p e rly c o e rc e d tes tim o n y , an d o th e rw ise v io late d th e fe d e r a l an d sta te cons t i t ut i on s. H erpet i t i on s eeks an evi dent i ar y hear i ng and an or derei t hervaca t i ng her c o n v ictio n o r h e r se n ten c e . T h e p o st-c o n v ictio n c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th e p e tit io n w a s u n tim e ly a n d d e n ie d re lie f w ith o u t a h e a ri n g . Pet i t i onert i m el y appea l ed t he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t ’ s or der

. She now ar gues t hatdue p roc ess c o n side rati o n s sh o u ld toll the s tat u te of li m it ati o n s an d there b y p erm itan ev iden ti ary h e a rin g . A lth o u g h h e r b rie f b e fo re th is c o u rt d o e s n o t ill u m in a te h e r du e p ro c e ss a rg u m e n t, her pet i t i on ar gued t hat due pr oces s cons i der at i ons s houl d t ol l t he s t at ut e o f l im i t at i ons beca us e s he w as unaw ar e of t he t i m i ng and r am i f i cat i ons of

t he one- years t at ut e of lim itatio n s. S h e n o tes th a t sh e is in e x p e rie n c e d in th e law , w a s a b a n d o n e d b y h e r a p p e llate at t or ney and ther efor e di d not r ece i ve advi ce f r om hi m r egar di ng t he nec es s ar y t i m i ng for her p e tit io n , a n d e rro n e o u sly b e liev e d th a t th e filing o f he r t a rd y R u le 1 1 a p p lica tio n w o u ld som eho w delay t he st artof t he st at ute of l i m i t at i on s. T he St at e count er s t hatt he pos t

- convi ct i on cour t ’ s or ders houl d be af f i r m ed. I tnot es th e p e tit io n w a s n o t filed w ith in th e o n e - y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n , w h ich b e g a n w h e n th is c o u rt issu ed i t s dir ect app eal decis i on on M ay 30, 20 07 , and t hat her cl ai m do es no tfa ll w i t hi n one of

t he st at ut or y exce pt i ons . Fur t her m or e, i t cont ends t hat , beca us e i gnor ance of t he l i m i t at i ons per i od i s notan excus e for a t ar dy pet i t i on, due pr oces s cons i der at i ons do not dem and t he s t at ut e of

l i m i t at i ons be t ol l ed i n t hi s cas e.

II . A n a ly sis “R eli ef under[t he Pos t
- C onvi ct i on Pr ocedur e A ct ] s hal l be gr ant ed w hen the convi ct i on ors ent ence i s voi d orvoi dabl e bec aus e of the abr i dgm ent of anyr i ghtguar ant eed-3-

byt he C ons t i tut i on of Tennes s ee or t he C ons t i tut i on of t he U ni t ed S t at es . ” T enn. C ode A nn. § 40- 30- 103. H ow ever , t o obt ai n r el i ef,
a per s on . . . m us tpet i t i on for pos t
- convi ct i on r el i ef under t hi s par tw i t hi n one (1 ) y e a r o f

th e d a te o f

th e f in a l a c ti o n o f

th e h ig h e st s tate a p p e llate c o u rt to w hi ch an a ppeal i s t aken or , i f no appe al i s t aken, w i t hi n o n e (1) y earof the d a te o n w h ich th e ju d g m e n t b e c a m e f in a l, o r co n sid e ra tio n o f th e p e tit io n sh a ll be barr ed.
T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 2 (a ). T h e s ta tu te is “ u n a m b ig u o u s .” W i l l i ams v. St at e, 44 S. W

. 3d 464, 468 ( T enn. 2001)

. I temphasi zes t hatt i m e i s of the es s ence i n fi l i ng a pet i t i on forpos t
- convi ct i on r el i ef a nd t hat t he one- y ear l i m i t at i ons per i od i s an el ement of the r i ght to f ile s u c h a n a c t i o n a s w e ll a s a c o n d itio n u p o n its e x e rc is e . T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 2 (a ). T hi s s t at ut or y j ur i s di ct i onal l i m i t at i on car ves outonl y t hr ee e xcept i ons , none o f w h ic h a p p ly h e re . S e e T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 4 0 -3 0 -1 0 2 (b ). O ur di r ectappea l deci s i on w as i s s ued on M ay 30, 2007. B eca us e Pet i t i onerdi d not f i l e a p e t i t i o n fo r r e h e a r i n g , s h e h a d s i x t y d a y s t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n fo r r e v i e w i n t h e s u p r e me cour t , s e e Te n n . R. App

. Pr o . 1 1 ( b ) , a n d o n e y e a r t o f i l e h e r p e t i t i o n fo r p o s t

- c o n vi ct i on r evi ew , s ee Tenn. C ode A nn. § 40- 30- 102( a)

. She di d nei t her

. H erpet i t i on t hus fal l s out s i de t he st at ute of

l i m i t at i on s. O u r su p re m e c o u rt h a s h e ld , h o w e v e r, th a t th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s c a n b e to lled in c a se s w h e re its stric t ap p lica tio n w o u ld d e n y th e p e tit io n e r “ a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ity to a ss e rt a c laim in a m e a n in g fu l tim e a n d m a n n e r.” W ill iam s, 4 4 S .W .3 d a t 4 6 8 (q u o tin g S e a ls v. St at e, 23 S. W

. 3d 272, 279 ( T enn. 2000) )

. See al s o B ur for d v. St at e, 845 S. W

. 2d 204, 208 ( T enn. 1992)

. I n es s ence , our cas e l aw has hel d t hatw h en a post

- convi ct i on cl ai m ar i s es af t ert he s t at ut e of

l i m i t at i ons begi ns t o r un, due proc es s m ay re qui r e t ol l i ng. See Sands v. St at e, 9 0 3 S

. W

. 2d 297, 301 ( T enn. 1995)

. O ur s upr em e cour thas es t abl i s hed a thr ee- s t ep p ro c e ss fo r a n a ly z in g su c h situ a tio n s: ( 1) det er m i ne w hen t he l i m i t at i ons per i od w oul d nor m al l y have be gun t o r un; ( 2) det er m i ne w het hert he gr ounds for r el i ef actual l y ar os e af

t ert he l i m i t at i ons p eriod w o u ld n o rm a ll y h av e c o m m en ce d ; and (3) if th e g rou n d s are ‘l aterar i s i ng, ’ det er m i ne i f , undert he fact s of t he ca s e, a str ic tappl i cat i on of t he lim itatio n s p e ri o d w o u ld e ffe c tiv e ly d e n y th e p e tit io n e r a re a so n a b le o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n tt h e c l a i m. Id

.Any claim Petition er might have against her appellate coun sel, how ever, arguab ly arose after the 2 expirationof the 6 0-dayw indowto file an applicatio n fo r reviewi n ou rs upreme court. B ut sh e do es n ot rais e a cl ai m a gain st

h er app el latec ou ns elinthis p etitio n and d oes n ot s ee k a de laye d di re ct app eal. Non etheless, as discuss ed b eloww ith resp ect to the claims she doe s p resent, bec ause she learned of h er alleged claims w ell befo re the end of thelimitations p eriod, du e pro cess w ould not d emand to lling. In d e e d , s h e w a s e v e n a w ar e o f h e r c l ai ms a g ai n s t h e r ap p e l l at e c o u n s e l du ri n g th is time, as 3 ev id en ce d byh er

April , 2 00 8, B

. P

. R

. c ompl ai nt
. We no te that one of P etitioner’s claims relates to her mental condition. Mental incompeten cy c an 4 require the to lling o f the statute of lim itations. See Williams, 44 S.W. 3d at 469. Howev er, Petitioner does not assert that her mental condition inhibited her ability to file a timely petition. Moreover, our reviewof the peti ti on andPeti ti one r’ s re la te d ple adi ngs ind ic at es thatshe i s ful ly capab le of ass erti ng hercla im s. As a resu lt, w e do no t believ e her allege d mental issues justify to lling inthis case. -4- I n t he pr es entcas e, due pr oces s does notdem and t he st at ut e of l i m i t at i ons be t ol l ed. I n pr ocee di ng t hr ough t he S ands anal ys i s , w e not e, f i r s t , t hat t he st at ut e of l i m i t at i ons began t o r un w hen w e i s s ued our deci s i on i n Pet i t i oner ’ s di r ect appea l on M ay 30, 2007. Second, becau se t he p et i t i on on l y rai ses cl ai m s a g a in st h e r tri al at t orneys, and t ho se cl ai m s ar ose dur i ng hert r i al , t hey ar e notl at e- ar i s i ng. R egar dl es s , s t r i ctappl i cat ion o f t he l i m i t at i ons 2 per i od does notpr ecl ude Pet i t i onerf r om havi ng a r eas onabl e oppor t uni t y t o pr es enther cl ai m s . She l ear ned of our d ec isi o n i n D ece m ber , 2007, s ever al m ont hs befor e t he l i m i t at i ons per i od cl os ed. She t her efor e had a s uf f i ci entoppor t uni t y t o f

i l e a t i m el y pet i t i on. M o re o v e r, ita p p e a rs s h e w a s fu lly a w a re o f h e r c lai m s a t th a t p o in t. T h e re is n o th in g to s ugges thercl ai m s ar e t he r es ul tof s om e new evi dence or r evel at i on bet w een M ay 30, 2008, and O ct ober28, 2008, w hen s he f i l ed herpet i t i on. T hatPe ti ti o n er w as notaw ar e of t he 3 s t at ut e of l i m i t at i ons , or t he r am i f i cat i ons of fai l i ng t o com pl y w i t h i t , does notm ean thats he s houl d be al l ow ed t o pr ocee d on a t ar dy pet i t i on. “[ P] et i t i oner ’ s i gnor ance of t he exi s t ence o f t h e statute o f l im it ati o n , ev en w h en all eg ed to stem from an att o rne y ’s n eg li g en t fail u re t o r enderadvi ce . . . does nott ol l t he r unni ng of t he s t at ut e. ” St at e v. Phi l l i ps , 904 S. W

. 2d 123, 124 ( T enn. C r i m . A pp. 1995)

. W e t her efo re h ave no conce r n t hatPet i t i onerw as not gi ven am pl e oppor t uni t y t o as s er thercl ai m i n a t i m el y m anner . She di d notdo s o. D ue p r o c e s s d o e s n o td e ma n d s h e b e a l l o we d t o d o s o n o w. 4

I I I . C oncl usi on U p o n re v iew o f th e re c o rd a n d th e p a rties ’ b rie fs, w e a ffirm th e ju d g m e n t o f th e p o stc o n v ictio n c o u rt.

___________________________________ NOR M A M c GE E OGL E , J UDGE