1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

AN DR EW EWIN G v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. P -23639 Car olyn W. B lackett, Judge

No. W2004-03007-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled May 24, 2006

Th e Pe tit ion e r, An dr e w E wi ng , a pp e a ls the tr ial c ou rt ' s d e nia l of his pe tit ionfo r p os tco n v i ct i o n re l i ef

. T h e S t at e h as fi l ed a m o t i o n re q u es t i n g t h at t h i s C o u rt af fi rm t h e t ri al co u rt 's denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of Criminal Appea ls. Bec ause the petition for post-c onviction relief is ba rre d by the statute of limitations, we g rant the State 's m o t ion and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the low e r c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYE S AND J.C. M C L IN , J J . joined.
R o b er tB. Ga i a, M em p h i s , T en n es s ee , fo r t h e a p p el l an t , An d re w E wi n g. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Sophia S. L ee, Assistant A ttorney Gene ral, for

the appellee , the State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

I n D e c e mbe r 1 99 5, a

She lby Cou nty jury fo un d th e Pe tit ion e r, An dr e w Ew ing , g uil ty of fi rs t deg ree murder and ag g ravated burg lary

. At a subseque nt sentencing hearing, Petitioner Ew ing w as sentenc ed to life in prison. On dire ct appe al to this Court, t he Petitioner’s c onvictions and sentenc es2

wer e af firmed. State v. Andrew Ewing , No. 02C01-9604-CR-00119, 1997 WL 68625 6 , at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, N ov. 5, 1997), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. Jun. 28, 1999). A petition fo r p o s t -convic tion relief wa s filed on J uly 10, 2000. As basis for r elief, the Petitioner alleg ed that trial c ounsel was inef fec tive. The a ffidavit attac hed to t he petition was sig ned by the Petitioner on J uly

3, 2000. By

order enter ed Aug ust 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e trial court a ppointed private c ounsel to repr esent P etitioner in the post-convic tion procee dings. A ppointed counsel subsequently

filed an amended p et i tion. On May 30, 2001, the trial court gr anted a ppointed counsel’s motion to wit hdraw from further re prese ntation of the Petitioner in the post-conviction matter. Substitute counsel wa s t hen appointed. Ahearing w as held on the pe tition on October 4, 2002, an d wa s t aken unde r adviseme nt by the trial court. On November 22, 2004, the trial court ent ered a n o rd e r d ism iss ing the pe tit iona s ti me -b arr e d. A n oti c e of app e a l do c ume nt w a s ti me ly filed on De cembe r 17, 2004.
The State ha s filed a moti on reque sting summ ary aff irmance by

this Court bymemorandum opinion. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. The State maintains that the petition is barre d bythe oney ear statute of limitations. I n h i s initial brief, the Petitioner maintains that his petition should not be dismissed on this basis as the State failed to re ly upon a statute of limit ations arg ument at the trial le ve l. I n thi s re g ard , it app e ars that the Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s that the app lic a tio n of the on e -y e ar s ta tut e of lim itatio ns to h is p e tit ionwo uldvio la te his du e pr oc e ss rig hts

. Pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-30-102(a ), a pe rson in cust o d y under a se nte nc e of

a c ou rt of thi s st a te mus t pe tit ionfo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f w ith in o ne y e ar of the date of the fi na l a c tio n o f the hig he st s ta te app e llate c ou rt to wh ic h a n app e a l is take n or , if no app e a l is taken, within one y ear

of the date on which the judgment becomes final. The statute emphasizes that "[t]i me is of the esse nce of the rig ht to file a petition for post-conviction relief or motion to reopen established by

this chapter, and the one- y ear limit ations period is an element of the rig ht to file such an ac tion and is a condition upon its ex erc ise." T.C.A. § 40-30-102( a). This Court has previously held, in Chu rc h v . S tat e , 987 S.W .2d 855, 857 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998), that the 1995 Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t permits the trial court to dismiss a petition based upon a proc edura l bar without the issue first being raised by the State. Additionally , section 40-30- 10 2( b) , T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d, pr ov ide s th a t th e tr ial c ou rt do e s n ot h a ve jurisd ic tio n to consider a petition for pos t-conviction relief i f i t was filed outside the one-y ear statute of limitations
u n l es s (1 ) t h e c l ai mi n t h e p et i t i o n i s b as ed u p o n a fi n al ru l i n g o f an ap p el l at e c o u rt es t ab l i s h i n g a constitutional right that wa s not recog nized as exi sting at the time of trial, if retr ospective a pplication of that rig ht is required; (2) the claim in the petition is based upon new scientific e viden ce establishing that such petitioner is ac tually innocent of the offe nse or of fense s for whic h the petitioner wa s convi ct ed ; o r (3) the claim in the petition seeks r elief f rom a sente nce that was e nh a nc ed becau se of a pr e vio us c on vic tio n a ndsu c h c on vic tio n inthe c a se in w hic h th e c la im i s a sse rt e d w a s not a g uil ty ple a wi th an a g re e d sen te nc e , an d the pr e vio us c on vic tio n ha s su bs e qu e ntl y been he ld to be invali d

. I n t h e p rese nt case , this Court affirmed the Petitioner’ s conviction on November

5, 1997, and the Tenne ssee Supre me Court denied the Petitioner’ s application for3

pe rm iss ionto a

pp e a l on June 28 , 19 99

. Th us , the Pe tit ion e r ha d on e y e ar in w hic h to pu rs ue a po stconv i ct i o n reme dy . The pre sent petition was not filed until J uly 10, 2000, outside the statute of limit ations. The Petitioner has f ailed to show that any of hi s claims fall wit hin one of the exceptions set forth in T.C.A. § 40-30- 102.

F or th e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , w e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e tr i a l c o u r td i d n o te rr i n s u mmari ly dismiss ing the petition for pos t-conviction relief as time-barr ed. Ac cording ly , it is ordered that the State’s motion is gra nted. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE