“ A pers on com mi t s i nce s t who eng age s i n s exu al penet r at i on

. . . wi t h a pers on, kn owi ng s uch per s on t o be, 1
wi t hout r ega r d t o l egi t i macy : ( 1) T he pers on' s nat ur al pare nt , chi l d, gr andpar ent , gr andch i l d, un cl e, au nt , ne phew, ni ece , ste p p a re n t, ste p c h ild , ad o p tive p a re n t, a d o p tive c h ild

. . . . ” 

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

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 5, 200 5

JOHNN Y L . B EAR D, SR . v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Willi am son Coun ty

No. CR06408 Tim othy L. Easter, Judge

No. M2004- 02227-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Jun e 7, 2005

The pe titioner appea ls from the pos t-conviction court’s dismiss al of his petit ion for post-convic tion

re lie f. He c on te nd s that the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt e rre d in c on c lud ing that hi s p e tit ion wa s u nti me ly filed without appointing c o u nsel and c onducting an evide ntiary hearing to de termine whe ther due proce ss c onsiderations tolled the statute of limit ations. Following our re view, we aff irm the dismissal of the pe tition.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed

J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

John H

. H e n d e r s o n , D i s tr i c tP u b l i c D e f e n d e r a n d E l i z ab e t h L

. Y o u m a n s A s s i s t a n tD i s tr i c tPub lic Def ender , for the a

ppellant, J ohnny

L . Be ard, Sr.

Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a nd Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L

. B le ds oe , As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Ron a ld L . D a vis , D ist

ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; a nd De re k K. Smith, As sis ta nt D ist ri c t A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

OP IN ION

On J anuary

7, 2002, the petitioner, Johnny L . Be ard, Sr., pled g uiltyto incest and re ceive d a sentenc e of fi v e y ea rs in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. On J une 21, 2004, he f iled a pro s e po stconviction petition alleg ing that his incest conviction based upon Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 39 -1 5- 30 2 wa s unc on sti tut ion a l in lig ht of the L a wr e nc e v. Te xas, 53 9 U .S. 55 8 ( 20 03 ). Th e po st-

1 conviction court by order

found no constitutional rig ht that would toll t he statute of limitations period for post-c onviction relief and dismiss ed the pe tition as unti mely

.-2-

On app e a l, the pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d insu mma

ri ly dis mis sin g his petition for post-conviction re lief. The pe titioner arg ues that the L awr ence decision establishes a new
c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht n ot r e c og nize d at th e tim e of his ple a ; th e re fo re , th e statut e of lim itatio ns sh ou ld be tolled.

Th e Pos t- Con vic tio n Pr oc e du re Ac t un a mbi g uo us ly ma nd a te s th e fo llo wi ng :
[A] person in custody

under a sent ence of a

court of this state must petition for post-conviction re lief under this part withi n one (1) y ear of t he date of the fina l action of the highe st state appellate court to which an appea l is taken or, if no a ppeal is take n, within one (1) y ear

of the date on which the judg ment became final, or c onsideration of such pe tition s hall be barred. The st atute of limit ations shall not be tolled for any

r e a s o n , i n c l u d i n g a n y t o l l i n g o r s a v i n g p r o v i s i o n o t h e r w i s e a v a i l ab l e a tl a w o r e q u i t y. Time is of the esse nce . . . .
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-1 0 2 (a ). Howe ver, the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t does permit the extension of the one-y ear

statute of limitations period for: (1) c laims based on a f inal appellate court ruling establishing a

constitutional right not re cog nized at the time of trial, but g iven re troac tive eff ect by the appe llate court; (2) claims base d upon new scientific evidenc e esta blishing that the pe titioner is actua l l y i nnocent; and ( 3) cla ims seeking relief from an e nhance d sentenc e that wa s based upon convicti o n s l at er determined to be invalid. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-102(b) . Additionally , due proce ss r e q u ir e s , in c e r tain c ir c u ms tan c e s , th a t th e s tatu te o f li mi tati o n b e to ll e d

. Se e Wi ll iams v. State, 44 S.W .3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) ; Seals v. State, 23 S.W .3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) ; Burf ord v. State, 845 S.W .2d 204 (Tenn. 1992)

.
L oo kin g a t L a wr e nc e v. Te xas, we no te that th is de c isi on do e s not ad dr e ss the c ri me of inc e st but rathe r hol ds that criminal convictions under the Texas same-se x sodomy statute violated the rig ht to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendme nt. I d. at 579. I n addition, we have pr eviously

addre ssed the issue of w hether Ten n essee’s incest statute violates Te nnessee ’s constitutional right to privac y . Smit h v. State, 6 S.W .3d 512 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999), perm. app. denied ( Tenn. 1999).

I n Smit h, the petitioner re lied upon Campbell v. Sundquist , 926 S.W .2d 250 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996), perm app. denied ( Tenn. 1996) to a rg ue that Te nnessee ’s i n cest statute infringe d upon her fundam en t al ri gh t to privacy protec ted by

the Tenne ssee Constitution. S mith, 6 S .W.3d at 515. Simi lar t o w hat th e Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Cou rt he ld i n L a wr e nc e , th e Te nn e sse e Cou rt of Ap pe a ls in Campbell invalidated Tennessee ’s Homos exual Practice s Act, holdi ng the Act infringe d upon the privac y rig hts of hom osexuals protec ted by our st ate constitut ion. Campbell, 926 S.W .2d at 265-66. As a re su lt, the pe tit ion e r in Smith arg ue d that he r inc e stu ou s a c tiv iti e s, lik e ho mos e xua l a c tiv iti e s,
wer e “a matter of intimate pe rsonal conc ern w hich is at the hea rt of Te nnessee ’s p rotec tion of the ri g ht o f priva c y .” Smith, 6 S.W. 3d a t 51 5. Af te r tho ro ug h a na ly sis , th is C ou rt de c lin e d to br oa dly

c o n s tru e i n c e s ta s p a r t o f a r i g h tt o e n g a g e i n p r i v a t e c o n s e n s u a l n o n

- c o m m e r c i a l s e x u a l a c t i v i t y.-3-

I ns te a d, we c on c lud e d th a t th e ri g ht t o p ri va c y un de r o ur

c on sti tut ion di d no t encompa ss a ri g ht t o
en gage i n i n ce s t

. I d

. at5 1 9

. W e s t at ed t h e f o l l o wi n g:

Th e state , in th e e xer c ise of its le g isl a tiv e fu nc tio n, ma y le g iti ma te ly

pr os c ri be a g a ins t
a c ts w hic h th re a te n p ub lic or de r andde c e nc y , in c lud ing pr oh ibi tio ns a g a ins t interfa milia sex ual re lations. Our pronounc ements of these principles are consistent with and not contra

ry to de eply rooted tra ditions. W e, ther efor e, hold that Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-302 doe s not violate the Constit ution of the State of Te nnessee

.
I d. at 520.
As previously

indicated, the L awr ence decision does not a ddress the c rime of ince st. Rather the L awr ence d ecision nar rowly addre sses the unconstitutionalityof a statute w hich forba de two persons of the same sex to eng ag e in certain intimate sex ual conduc t – an issue alre ady determined to violate Tenne ssee’ s constitutional right to privac y

. See L awr ence , 539 U.S. 558; Campbell, 926 S.W. 2da t 25 0. As clearl y he ld i n Sm ith , in c e stu ou s r e la tio ns hip s a re no t pr ote c te d b y

ou r s ta te constitution and the L awr ence decision i n no way alters our holding in Smit h. There fore , it is clear that the L a w r e n c e d e c is io n d o e s n o t e s ta b li s h a n e w c o n s ti tu ti o n a l r

ig h t w h ic h w o u ldr e q u ir e the tolling of the statute of

limit ations. Acc ording ly , the dec ision of the post-conviction court deny ing relief is affirme d.

___________________________________ J .C. McL I N, J UDGE