# FIL ED M arch 27 , 200 8 Cec il Cr ow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN THE CO UR T OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT JACKSON SEP TEMBE R SESSI ON , 199 5
RO NA LD TUR KS, a/k/a ASAD E. MU JIH AD EEN , ) ) No. 02C 01- 9502- CR -0 0035 Appel lan t, )

) Shel by

C ounty v . ) ) Ho n . J o h n P. Co lt o n , J r. , J u d ge ) STATE OF TE N N ES SE E, ) ( Po s t- C on v i c ti on , H ab ea s C or pu s , an d C oram ) Nobis) ) Appel lee
. )
For the Appel lan t: For the Appel lee : W ay ne C hast ain Cha rl es W . Bu rs on 66 M onroe, S uit e 804 Atto rn ey Gene ra l of Tennessee Me mphis , TN 38103 and S h a ro n S
. S e lb y Ass is tant Atto rn ey

Gene ra l of Tennessee 450 J ames R ober

tso n Par kw ay Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 John W . Pi erotti , J r. Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l a n d Chr is C ra ft Assistan t District Atto rney General 201 Po pla r Av enue Me mphis , TN 38103- 1947

OPIN ION F ILED :______

_________

________ AFFIRMED Jos eph M . Ti pton Ju d ge2 O P I N I O N The peti ti oner , R onal d Tur ks , a/ k/a As ad E. M uji hadeen, appeal s a s o f ri g ht fro m the Shel by

C ounty C ri minal C our

t w hic h deni ed hi m post -c onv icti on, h abeas cor pus and c oram nobi s reli ef f ro m hi s 1 979 first deg re e murder co nv icti on and re sul ti ng l ife s entenc e. The tr ial co urt di smi ss ed th e pet it ion er 's ca se becau se the p ost conv icti on and coram nobi s a cti ons w ere bar re d by st atute s o f li mita ti ons and t he hab eas co rpus actio n failed to state a groun d for relief . Th e followi ng issues are p re s e n t e d fo r r e vie w:

(1 ) Can ev ide nce tendi ng to show ac tual i nnoce nce of the crime for which the p etition er has be en co nvicted be th e ba sis fo r p o s t -c o n vic t io n re li e f u n d e r T e n n e s s e e la w? (2 ) Can ev ide nce tendi ng to show ac tual i nnoce nce of the crime for which the p etition er has be en co nvicted be th e ba sis fo r h a b e a s c o r p u s re l i e f? (3 ) Doe s the one- y ear sta tute of l imi tati ons fo r br ing ing evidence o f

actua l innoce nce u nde r T enn essee 's coram nob is sta tute v iol ate t he D ue Proces s C lau se of the F our teent h Amendment to t he U nit ed St ates C onst it uti on? W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s d is mis sal of the p eti ti on.

The record reflect s t hat t he defendant w as conv icted i n 1979 of felo ny murde r and t hat h is co nv icti on and li fe senten ce w ere aff ir med on a ppeal to thi s c our t. Ron ald Turk s v . St ate, No. 35, Shel by C ounty ( Tenn. C ri m. App. M ar . 27, 1980) , app . deni ed on del ay ed app. , ( Tenn. Apr . 8, 1985) ( conc ur ri ng i n resul ts onl y ). The peti ti oner 's first post -c onv icti on pet it ion w as filed i n 1980 and di smi ss ed i n 1981 for failu re to sta te a cl aim for reli ef. N o appea l w as tak en. The peti ti oner w as deni ed federal habeas co rp us re li ef in S eptember 1981. H is se cond post -c onv icti on pet it ion w as filed i n October

1981 and di smi ss ed i n N ov ember 1981 on g ro unds of w aiv er and prev iou s d eter minat ion
. No appeal w as tak en.3 The peti ti oner

fil ed a sta te ha beas cor pus peti ti on i n 1983 and t he pet it ion w as treated as one for post -c onv icti on reli ef and di smi ss ed for w aiv er and prev iou s deter minat ion
. How ev er , t he c ase w as re v ersed and remanded for the appoi ntment of an at tor ney

and a hear ing
. Ron ald Turk s, a/k/a A sad E. M uji hadeen v . St ate, No. 57, She lby Coun ty (Te nn. Cri m. App. Dec. 29, 1 983 ). The trial court held an ev iden tiary hear ing and then dis mis sed the p eti ti on. This co urt affirmed the d is mis sal of the peti ti on butv acat ed and re entered th e j udg ment t hat a ff ir med the peti ti oner ’s co nv icti on on d i rec t ap pe al i n orde r t ha t th e pe ti ti on er

c ou l d s ee ka d el ay ed a pp ea l t o th e s up rem e cour t. R onal d Tur ks v . St ate, No. 27, S hel by C ounty ( Tenn. C ri m. App. Ja n. 16 , 198 5)
. In Ap ril 198 5, th e sup reme court de nied the pe titione r’s application to app eal, conc ur ri ng i n resul ts onl y .

T he p resen t case be gan in March 199 3 w hen the pe titione r filed a pro se peti ti on for post -c onv icti on reli ef. C ounse l w as appoi nted and fil ed an amended pe ti ti on that soug ht bo th po st- conv icti on and habeas co rp us re li ef on the g ro und t hat t he pet itione r’s r ight to due process w as v iolate d be cause the trial court erron eou sly instructe d the jury . Th e pe tition a sserted thatthe trial court’s instruct ion on malice v iol ated Sands trom v . M ontana, 442 U. S. 5 10, 9 9 S. C t. 2450 ( 1979) and that the t ri al cour t’ s i nst ru cti on on the e lement s o f f irst deg re e murder al low ed th e j ur

y to use the ele ments of premedi tati on and del ibe ra ti on i nterchang eabl y . The peti ti oner al so filed w ith the trial court an af f idavit that w as signed by Bert Egg leston , one of the pe titione r’s co- defendants. I n the aff ida v it , Eg g les ton a ll eg ed th at t he pet it ion er di d notsh oot t he v icti m and t hat h e and the o ther co defendant had pl anned t he robber y before they ask ed th e pet it ion er

to joi n the m.
The tr ial co urt ent ered an order di smi ss ing the peti ti on on the g ro unds that the p eti ti on di d notst ate g ro unds for habe as cor pus re li ef and thatthe peti ti oner ’ s p ost conv icti on c lai ms w ere bar re d by the appl ic abl e s tatut e of li mita ti ons, T.C .A. § 40- 30-T he l i m i t at i on p er i od f or pet i t i ons f i l ed o n oraft er M ay 10, 199 5, i s one y ear . T
. C
. A. § 1 4 0 -3 0 -2 0 2
. 4 102. Before the tr ial co urt’ s o rd er bec ame final , t he pet it ion er fil ed a moti on for the cour t t o amend it s o rd er

to inc lud e a r uli ng on w hether Bur ford v . St ate, 845 S. W .2d 204 ( Tenn. 1992 ), tol led the li mita ti ons per iod
. The peti ti oner al so filed a s econd amended pe ti ti on. In ad dit ion to seek ing pos t- conv icti on and habeas co rp us re li ef, the sec ond amende d pet it ion so ug ht a w ri t of er ro r coram nobi s b ased upon t he affidav itof Ber t Eg g les ton. On Aug ust12, 1994, the t ri al cour t ent ered an order

deny ing the sec ond pet it ion bec ause the c oram nobi s c lai m w as unti mely under T.C .A. § 27- 7- 201. The order

al so inc or porated the e ar li er order thatdeni ed th e pet it ion er habeas co rp us and pos t- conv icti on reli ef.
I

In hi s first is sue, the peti ti oner co ntends thathe i s e nti tl ed to pos tconv icti on reli ef becaus e the aff ida v itof Ber t Eg g les ton i s n ew ly

di sc ov ered ev ide nce of his actu al inno cence . He couple s his claim of actua l innoce nce wi th allegatio ns tha t his cons ti tuti onal r ig hts w ere v iol ated w hen t he tr ial co urt er ro neous ly i nst ru cte d the j ur

y . Rel y ing on B ur

ford, he arg ues that the t hree- y ear l imi tati on per iod i n T.C .A. § 40- 30- 102 sh oul d notbar

hi s c lai ms for post -c onv icti on reli ef becaus e he did not dis cov er the 1 ev ide nce of actual i nnoce nce unti l 1992 w hen Eg g les ton d eci ded t o tel l the t ru th an d becau se Stat e v . Brow n, 83 6 S. W .2d 5 30 ( Tenn. 1992 ), w as not d eci ded unt il after the post -c onv icti on s tatut e of li mita ti ons had r un. W e di sag re e.

Ini ti all y , w e not e tha t w e do not v iew the Ber t Eg g les ton a ff ida v itas evidence o f

the pe titione r’s i nno cence . In relevant part, th e af f idavit states: I B e rtE ggl e s t o n . . . d e p o s e a n d sa y: 2. That Asad E. Mu ji hadeen did not shootand ki ll the v icti m ( Ar nol d Gr ig g s) on t he ni g ht of October 26, 1978;5 3. That Mu ji hadeen at al l ti mes w as si tti ng i n the dr iv er si de of hi s a utomobi le and w as sti ll i n the ca r w hen I fled th e s cene; 4. That at no ti me di d any one c ontempl ate, pla n, or dis cus s k il li ng the v icti m on t he ni g ht of the cr ime, and that the p lan to bump i nto t he v icti m’s ca r en route to t he bank and g ra bbi ng the (a ss umed) money w hen he g ot ou t t o ass ess the damag e, w as pla nned pr ior to ask ing M uji hadeen to j oin my sel f and the thi rd co -d efendant ( Rob ert Sh ar p) [.]
Und er then ex is ti ng l aw , t he pet it ion er w as as li abl e as a pr inc ipa l for felony murder as l ong as he w as a w il li ng par ti ci pant in the robber

y thatresul ted i n the murde r. Se e T.C .A. §§ 39- 109 ( 1975 R epl .) , 39- 2402 ( 1975 R epl .) ; D upes, 209 Tenn. 506, 512, 354 SW .2d 4 53, 4 56 ( Tenn. 1962 ). I n fact, tak en as tr ue, t he affidav itnot onl y fail s t o es tabl is h tha t t he defendant w as not i nv olv ed i n the robber y , i t doe s n ot neg ate h is kn ow led g e and aid i n the ki ll ing
. W e not e tha t t he proof pres ented at t he peti ti oner ’s tr ial sh ow ed th at t he c odefendants trav ele d w it h hi m in hi s c ar to the s cene of the rob bery and tha t his his g un was the mu rder w eap on. Thu s, the petitio ner is g uil ty of felony

murder by ai din g and abett ing reg ardle ss of w hether he w as the tr ig g er man or

i nit iat ed th e pl anni ng of the robber y . Eg g les ton’ s a ff ida v iti s n eit her proof of the pe titione r’s actual inno cence nor proof of a constitu tiona l v iolation thatw ould make h is co nv icti on v oid or v oid abl e s o as to enti tl e hi m to p ost -c onv icti on reli ef. See T .C.A. § 4 0-30 -105 (1990 Repl.).

W e also disa gree wi th th e pe titione r’s conten tions regarding the tim eliness of his cl aims for p ost -c onv icti on reli ef. The pet it ion er co ntends thatappl ic ati on of the three- y ear

st atute of li mita ti ons to hi s p eti ti on resul ts in a deni al of his r ig ht t o due proces s. H e arg ues that he s houl d be enti tl ed to pos t- conv icti on reli ef becaus e the tr ial cour t er ro neous ly

i nst ru cte d the j ur

y i n v iol ati on of Sands trom v . M ontana, 442 U. S. 510 , 99 S. Ct. 2450 (1979 ), and th at th e suf f iciency of

the evidence to supp ort his conv icti on for firs t deg re e murder sh oul d be re ex amined i n l ig ht of the Tenness ee Sup reme Court’s decision in State v . Brow n, 83 6 S.W .2d 530 (Ten n. 19 92). How ever,6

the p eti ti oner

co uld hav e rais ed hi s S andst ro m is sue before t he s tatut e of li mita ti ons e ve n b e ga n t o ru n in t h is ca s e , se e S a n d s , 9 0 3 S
. W
. 2 d 2 9 7 , 3 0 2 (T e n n . 1 9 9 5 ), a n d we hav e refused to appl y

Brow n’s hol din g s retroact iv ely
. See, e.g ., Lofton v . St ate, 898 S.W . 2d 246, 250 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1994)
.

T he reco rd ref lects tha t the petitio n for post-co nviction relief w as f iled in the t ri al cour

t on Ma rc h 3, 1993. Bec ause the p eti ti oner w as conv icted b efore t he enact ment of T.C .A. § 40- 30- 102, the l imi tati ons per iod i n thi s c ase sta rt ed to r un on Jul y 1, 1986. Sands , 903 S.W .2d a t 301 ; Ab sto n v . St ate, 749 S. W .2d 4 87, 4 88 ( Tenn. Cr im. App. 1988)
. The peti ti oner fail ed to fil e hi s p eti ti on w it hin three y ears o f that da te and present s n o j ustca use for th e tol li ng of the s tatut e of li mita ti ons.
II In hi s n ext i ss ue, t he pet it ion er co ntends thatthe tr ial co urt er re d by conc lud ing thathi s p eti ti on fail ed to st ate g ro unds for habe as cor pus re li ef. H e arg ues tha t evi den ce of

actua l innoce nce sh ould be a ground for hab eas co rpus relief in Tenness ee. He als o urg es us to ad opt d ev elo pments i n federa l habeas co rp us law w hic h he cl aims al low

a pe ti ti oner

w it h ev ide nce of actual i nnoce nce to br ing an other w is e procedu ra ll y

bar re d c onst it uti onal cl aim. Se e Sc hlu p v . D elo , 115 S. Ct . 851 (199 5). He arg ues th at de v elop me nts in fede ral habe as corpu s law mustnece ssarily be a dop ted in state ca ses be cause Article I, Section 8 of the T enn essee Constitu tion is sy nony mous w it h the due proces s p ro v is ion s o f the federa l cons ti tuti on. See S tate ex re l. Ang li n v . M it chel l, 506 S.W .2d 2 24 ( Tenn. 1980 ). W e di sag re e w it h hi s p ro cedural premis e. W e are notobl ig ated to i ncor porate federal habeas co rp us li mits and law i nto our st ate h abeas co rp us procedu re .

In t his respect, as the p eti ti oner ac know led g es, the sta te remedy of hab eas co rpus relative to criminal con v ictions in T enn essee is l imite d in scope to v oid7

jud g ments of conv icti on and ex pirati on of ter ms of i mpri sonment
. See P otts v . St ate, 833 S. W .2d 6 0, 62 ( Tenn. 1992 ); Sta te ex rel. Kunt zv . Bo mar, 214 Tenn. 500, 504, 381 S.W .2d 2 90- 91 ( 1964)
. Al so, i f the tr ial co urt render ing a j udg ment has j ur is dicti on of the p erson and t he s ubj ectmatte r and has the author ity to make t he c hal len g ed jud g ment, the j udg ment of co nv icti on i s n or mall y co nsi dered to be v oid abl e, no t v oid
. Pot ts, 83 3 S.W .2d at 62. The petitio ner ha s not alleged suf f icient ground s thatw ould make h is co nv icti on v oid
. W e ag re e w it h the tr ial co urt’ s c oncl usi on th at he fail ed to s t a t e a n y

g ro u n d fo r

h a b e a s c o r p u s re l i e f.
III Next, the p eti ti oner

ch all eng es the t ri al cour t’ s d is mis sal of his co ra m nobi s c lai m. F irst, he a rg ues that his cl aim shoul d notbe b ar re d by the one- y ear li mita ti ons per iod thatus ual ly appl ies to suc h c lai ms bec ause itw as not h is fault that he faile d to presentthe ev ide nce at an ear li er ti me. I n s uppor

t, he c it es T.C. A. § 40- 26- 105 , w hich, in relevant pa rt, state s:

Wri t of erro r coram nobis.--There i s h ereby made available to con v icted d ef e n d a nts in crimina l cases a proceed ing i n the natu re of a w ri t of er ro r co ra m n obi s, to be g ov er ned by

the same r ule s a nd procedu re appl ic abl e to the w ri t of er ro r coram nobi s i n c iv il ca ses , e xcept i nsofar as incon sistentherewith. Notice of the suing out of the w rit shall be s er v ed on the d is tr ict attor ney g eneral. .
. . T he reli ef obt aina ble by this proceed ing sha ll be conf ined to errors dehors t he record and to mat te rs that w ere notor co uld not have bee n litig ate d on the trial of the case , on a m otion f or a new tr ial , on appea l in the nature of a w ri t of er ro r, on w ri t of er ro r, or in a habeas corpu s proc eedi ng . Upo n a show ing by the d efendant th a t he w as w it hout fault i n fail ing to present certain evidence a t the prope r time, a wr it of error coram no bis w il l li e for subs eq uentl y or new ly di sc ov ered ev ide nce re lat ing to m a tt e rs whi ch w e re lit iga te d atth e t r i a l if th e ju d ge deter mines that such ev ide nce mayhav e resu lt ed in a different jud g ment had i t bee n present ed atthe tr ial
. . . . (e mphasi s a dded)
. The peti ti oner arg ues that the l ang uag e under li ned abo v e i ndi cat es that the l eg is lat ure i ntended to ex cl ude c ri minal ca ses from t he one- y ear l imi tati ons per iod thatappl ies to w ri ts of error co ra m nobi s i n c iv il ca ses , s ee T.C .A. § 27- 7- 103, “[u]p on a showi ng by

the de fend antthathe w as w ithou t fault in failing to presen t certain8

ev ide nce at t he proper

ti me.” W e di sag re e. W e do not v iew the sta tute of li mita ti ons as bei ng i ncons is tent w it h the prereq uis it e tha t t he defendant show thathe w as w it hout fault i n fail ing to presentthe ev ide nce at t he appropr iat e ti me. S ee San ds v . St ate, 903 S.W .2d at 299 (applying T.C.A . § 27-7 -103 to bar a claim for coram nob is relief).

Seco ndl y , t he pet it ion er refers to c onst it uti onal pr inc ipl es of li ber ty , j ust ic e, due process an d com ity between sta te an d fede ral courts to argue th at his coram nob is claim sho uld no t be tim e-ba rred. How ever, in H errera v . Collins, 113 S. Ct. 853 (1993 ), the S upreme C our

t uph eld the appl ic ati on of a Tex as ru le that bar re d the defendant from present ing new ly

di sc ov ered ev ide nce of actual i nnoce nce becau se he fail ed to raise the issue w ithin th irty days from w hen his sente nce was impose d. W e likew ise conc lud e tha t t he pet it ion er ’s co nst it uti onal r ig hts hav e notbeen v iol ated by appl ic ati on of Tennessee ’s one- y ear l imi tati on per iod
.
In c onsi derati on of the foreg oin g and the record as a w hol e, t he j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Jos eph M . Ti pton, Ju dg e

CONCUR:

Jo e B. Jo n e s, Pre sid in g Ju d ge

Jo h n K. Bye rs, Sp e cia l Ju d ge