1



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

AT JAC KSON

MA RV IN A NTH ONY MA TTHEWS , P RO 

### S E 

### v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. P 27855 Art hur T. B ennett, Judge

No. W2003-02980-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled May 21, 2004

The Petitioner, Mar vin Anthony Matthews, a

p p e a ls th etr

ia l c ourt' s summary

dismiss al of his petition for post-c onviction relief. T h e S t at e has filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court' s denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The pe tition for po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f i s b arred by the statut e of

lim itatio ns . A c c or din g ly , th e Sta te ' s mo tio n is g rante d and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

D AVI D G. H AYES , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OE G. R I L EY and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined. Marvin Anthony

Matthews, pro se

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & R eporte r; Michae l Markha m, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

On Dec ember 13, 1988, a S helby County jury found Petitioner g uiltyof g rand la rce ny
. See Ma rv in A nth on

y Ma tth e ws v . S tat e , No. 16, 1990 WL 2862, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Jan. 17, 1990), perm. to appeal de nied , ( Te nn . May 14 , 199 0)

. Th e jury fu rthe r f ou ndthe Pe tit ion e r t o be an ha bitual criminal and the tria l court i mposed a li fe sentence

. Id. The Petitioner’s c onviction and sente nce w ere aff

irmed on direc t appea l. Id. Subsequently , Petitioner beg an filing a series of petitions for post-conviction re lief. Se e , e .g ., Ma rv in M att he ws v . S tat e , No. W1999-00833-CCAR3-PC, 2001 WL 394868, *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Apr. 17, 2001) (post-c onviction petition barr ed b y st atu te o f l imita

tio ns ); M a r v i n A

. M a t t he ws v . S tat e , No. W2000-01893-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 WL 1482780, * 1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at J ackson, Fe b. 8, 2002) (post-c onviction petition barred by statute of limitations). One petition pr oved succe ssful on appea l, w ith this Court reve rsing eig ht of2

the thir teen prior felony

convictions used by

the State to prove the Petitioner’s habitual criminal status. See Ma rv in A . M att he ws v . S tat e , No. 02C01-9204-CR-00091, (Te nn. Crim. App. At J ackson, F eb. 24, 1993), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. Jun

. 3 , 1 9 9 3 ). Notwithstanding , the requisite number o f q u alify ing c onvictions remained to sa tisfy his classification as a n habitual criminal. Se e Ma rv in M

att he ws v . S tat e , No. W1999-00833-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 W L 394868, *1.

On No ve mbe r 12, 20 03 , Peti tio ne r fi le d the ins ta nt pe tit ion se e kin g po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f i n the Shelby

CountyCriminal Court from his conviction for g rand la rce ny and his classification as an habitual criminal. The trial court denied re lief, stati n g t h at t he petition is barre d by the statute of limit ations. On appe al, Petitioner ave rs that the statute of limitations should not act as a ba r to relief as “his judg ment is ill eg al and ther efor e void.” Sp ec i fi ca l l y , Petitioner maintains that he is being

“ he ld by a uth or ity of a fi na l jud g me nt un de r a mis de me a no r fo rm fo r a fe lon y of larc e ny .” Th e Sta te responds that the statute of limit ations bars the pe tition.

Th e Pe ti ti o ner’ s conviction for g rand la rce ny became final in 1990. Petitioner had thre e y ear s in which to challeng e thi s conviction i n a post -convic tion procee ding. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102 ( repeale d 1995). The P etitioner raises no g rounds upon which to toll the s tatute. See Sands v

. Sta te , 903 S.W .2d 297 (Tenn. 1995). Acc ording ly , the petition was properly denied a s being barr ed by the statut e of

lim itatio ns . Mor e ov e r, wh ile the c la im may be raise d in ha

be a s c or pu s p ro c e e din g s, a petition f

or post-conviction relief may not be trea ted as one for habea s corpus re lief. See M oran v . S tat e , 3 Tenn. Crim. App. 118, 457 S.W.2d 886, 887 (1970). Notwithstanding, Petitioner a lleg es that his se ntence is illeg al. An illega l se ntence may be
c o rr e c te d a t a n y time. St ate v . B ur k ha rt , 566 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978) . Ag ain, Petitioner alleg es that the “ mitti mus writ of confine ment was void on its fac e.” Specifica lly , he alleg es that the mit tim us re fe rs to a n o ld s ta tute re la tin g to m isd e me a no r g uil ty ple a s. Pe tit ion e r h a s p re vio us ly raised t h i s i d en t i cal claim in a previous application for writ of ha beas c orpus re lief. See Ma rv in Anthony Matthews v. Charles C. Noles, W arden , No. 02C 01-9206-CC-00140, 1993 WL 46546, * 1 (T en n . Crim. App. at J ackson, F eb. 24, 1993), perm. to appeal de nied , ( T e n n
. Ju n
. 1 , 1993). A pa ne l of thi s Co urt a ff

ir me d th e low e r c ou rt ’s de nia l of ha be a s cor pu s re lie f, fi nd ing that th e statut e relied upon Petitioner, Te nnessee C o de Annotate d § 40-20-107, is inapplica ble to his case. Id. at *2. I ndeed, this Court held “[ t] hat s tatute i s the old sentenc ing statute which discussed the jury ’s role in se tting sentenc es for crimes committed prior to 1982.” Id. This Court held that the judg ment enter ed by

the trial court complied both w ith Rule 32(e ), Tenne ssee Rules of Criminal Proce dure, and sec tion 40-20-101, Tenne ssee Code A nnotated. Id.

Acc ording ly , it is order ed that the State’s motion is g rante d. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th R ule 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.3 ________________________

### ___________ DAVID G. H AYES
, 

### JUDGE