FILED

March 26, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

DECEMBER SESSION, 1997

HAROLD VERNON SMITH, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9704-CR-00130

)

Appellant, )

)

) HAWKINS COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. JAMES E. BECKNER

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

CRIMINAL COURT OF HAWKINS COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

HAROLD VERNON SMITH JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Pro Se Attorney General and Reporter

Ann X N.E.C.C.

P.O. Box 5000 SANDY COPOUS PATRICK

Mountain City, TN 37683-5000 Assistant Attorney General

425 5th Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

C. BERKELEY BELL

District Attorney General

DOUG GODBEE

Assistant District Attorney General

Courthouse, Main Street

Rogersville, TN 37857

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-2-

ORDER

The Petitioner, Harold Vernon Smith, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of

his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The is the latest installment of his

collateral challenges to his life sentence as an habitual criminal. In his petition,

he argued that the indictments for the underlying offenses failed to charge

essential elements of the offenses. The trial court dismissed the petition. We

conclude that the Appellant is not entitled to post-conviction relief and we

therefore affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal.

The Petitioner was convicted of five counts of armed robbery on June 15,

1981 and sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual criminal. The convictions

were affirmed by this Court on June 11, 1982 and the supreme court denied

permission to appeal on September 7, 1982. State v. Smith, 639 S.W.2d 677

(Tenn. Crim. App.) perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1982). The Petitioner filed the

current petition for post-conviction relief on January 24, 1997. The trial court

dismissed the petition without a hearing on February 28, 1997, finding that it was

barred by the statute of limitations. The Petitioner now appeals.

The new Post-Conviction Procedure Act governs this petition and all

petitions filed after May 10, 1995. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq.

(Supp. 1996). This Act provides, in pertinent part, that “notwithstanding any other

provision of this part to the contrary, any person having ground for relief

recognized under this part shall have at least one (1) year from May 10, 1995, to

file a petition or a motion to reopen a petition under this part.” Compiler’s Notes
-3-

to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 (Supp. 1996) (referring to Acts 1995, ch. 207,

§ 3). The convictions in question became final on September 7, 1982. The

previous three-year statute of limitations began to run for the Petitioner on July

1, 1986, and expired on July 1, 1989. As a result, the Petitioner was already

barred by the previous statute of limitations on the date the new Act took effect,

May 10, 1995. See Carter v. State, 952 S.W . 2d 417 (Tenn. 1997). Nor does the

Petitioner’s claim fit within any of the statutorily-recognized exceptions to the

statute of limitations. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-202(b)--(c) (Supp.1996).

Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that the petition was barred by the

statute of limitations.

Even if we were to address the Petitioner’s claim on its merits, we would

conclude that it has no merit. In support of his petition and argument, the

Petitioner relies primarily upon the decision of this Court in State v. Roger Dale

Hill, C.C.A. No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267, W ayne County (Tenn. Crim. App.,

Nashville, June 20, 1996). We first note that this Court’s decision in Hill was

based upon an interpretation of our new criminal code, and this code is

applicable only to offenses occurring after November 1, 1989. Secondly, our

supreme court has reversed this Court’s decision in Hill. See State v. Hill, 954

S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997).

In the case sub judice, we have examined the language of the challenged

indictment and we conclude that the indictment adequately alleged the criminal

offenses charged and sufficiently informed the Petitioner of the charges against

him such that the convicting court had jurisdiction. We see no reason for further

discussion or analysis. The Petitioner’s convictions are not void. Thus, his
-4-

petition presents no cognizable claim for the purposes of post-conviction relief or

habeas corpus relief. See Charles Edward Orren v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-

9704-CR-00141, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 13, 1998);

George F. Jones, Jr. v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00062, Johnson

County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Feb. 3, 1998); Randy Blaine Knight v.

Carlton, Warden, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00162, Johnson County (Tenn.

Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan. 26, 1998); Perry C. Riley v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-

9705-CR-00181, Morgan County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan. 23, 1998);

Roy A. Burch v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9610-CR-00391, Johnson County,

(Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan. 16, 1998); State v. Darel G. Bolin, C.C.A. No.

03C01-9212-CR-00450, Cumberland County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan.

15, 1998); Joseph Ronald Duclos v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00182,

Morgan County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Jan. 16, 1998);State v. Rogers L.

McKinley, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9612-CR-00455, Bledsoe County (Tenn. Crim.

App., Knoxville, Jan. 6, 1998); Timothy Wayne Johnson v. Bowlen, Warden,

C.C.A.No. 03C01-9611-CR-00443,Bledsoe County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville,

Dec. 23, 1997); Darryl Douglas Sheets v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9701-CR00031, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 23, 1997); Jerry Cox

v. State,C.C.A. No. 03C01-9610-CR-00392, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App.,

Knoxville, Dec. 23, 1997); Bruce Belk v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9703-CR00109, Morgan County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 23, 1997); Abel

Rodriguez, Jr. v. State,C.C.A. No. 03C01-9612-CR-00463, Greene County

(Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 23, 1997); Donald Wayne Holt v. State, C.C.A.

No. 03C01-9702-CR-00059, Johnson County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec.

23, 1997); Gene Hibbard v. State, C.C.A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00077, Knox

County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 23, 1997).
-5-

We conclude that no error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment is

apparent on the record. Based upon a thorough reading of the record, the briefs

of the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, the

judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 of the Court of

Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

___________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODAL, JUDGE