IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JAMES KELLY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Bradley County

No. 20-CR-136-PR Andrew M. Freiberg, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2020-00759-CCA-R3-PC

___________________________________

The pro se Petitioner, James Kelly, appeals as of right from the Bradley County Criminal

Court’s order summarily denying his pro se pleading that the trial court treated as a petition 

for post-conviction relief. The State has filed a motion to affirm the trial court’s judgment 

pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. Following 

our review, we conclude that the State’s motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of 

the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA MCGEE 

OGLE, and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

James Kelly, Pro Se, Mountain City, Tennessee.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; and Renee W. Turner, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Factual Background

On August 15, 1991, the Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count each of aggravated 

kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and felony escape and was sentenced 

to a total effective sentence of thirty years’ incarceration as a Range I, standard offender. 

On April 30, 2020, the Petitioner filed a “Response of James Kelly, to the Motion of 

dismissal of Motion to Compel Attorney to Produce Client’s File.” In addition to 

10/16/2020
- 2 -

complaints surrounding trial counsel’s failure to produce a work-product file, the pleading 

contains allegations that the Petitioner’s 1991 guilty pleas were the result of the ineffective 

assistance of counsel. On May 11, 2020, the trial court summarily denied relief, ruling that 

the court had no authority to compel production of the file and that any post-conviction 

claims were untimely. The Petitioner filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. In his 

arguments before this Court, the Petitioner contends that his guilty pleas are the result of 

trial counsel’s ineffective assistance relative to pretrial investigation. The Petitioner 

advances no argument defending the timeliness of the pleading. The State filed a motion 

asking this court to affirm the trial court’s judgment by memorandum opinion pursuant to 

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. The Petitioner has filed a response to the 

State’s motion reasserting the arguments raised in his brief. 

Analysis

At the time of the Petitioner’s guilty plea, the Tennessee’s Post-Conviction 

Procedure Act provided that a claim for post-conviction relief must be filed “within three

(3) years of the date of the final action of the highest state appellate court to which appeal 

is taken or consideration of such petition shall be barred.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102

(1990). The Petitioner pleaded guilty in August 1991 and did not seek any appeal 

thereafter. Therefore, the statute of limitations to file a petition for post-conviction relief 

expired in September 1994. On May 10, 1995, the Act was amended to provide that a 

petition for post-conviction relief must be filed “within one (1) year of the final action of 

the highest state appellate court to which appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, within 

one (1) year of the date on which the judgment became final, or consideration of such 

petition shall be barred.” See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(a) (1997); see also Tenn. Code 

Ann. § 40-30-102(b) (2018). The one-year statute of limitations applies to all petitions 

filed after May 10, 1995. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464, 468 (Tenn. 2001). 

The April 30, 2020 pleading is clearly untimely. Further, the Petitioner did not assert any 

statutory or due process tolling claims. Therefore, we conclude that the post-conviction 

court correctly dismissed the petition.

Conclusion

When an opinion would have no precedential value, this court may affirm the 

judgment or action of the trial court by memorandum opinion when the judgment is 

rendered or the action taken in a proceeding without a jury and such judgment or action is 

not a determination of guilt and the evidence does not preponderate against the findings of 

the trial court. See Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 20. We conclude that this case satisfies the 

criteria of Rule 20. Accordingly, the State’s motion to affirm by memorandum opinion the 

judgment of the trial court denying post-conviction relief is GRANTED. Upon 

consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we affirm the judgment of the 
- 3 -

Bradley County Criminal Court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court 

of Criminal Appeals.

______________________________________

D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JUDGE