1



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

AT JAC KSON

ULY SSES RIC HAR

DS ON v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty

No. 84-01275 Joseph B. Dailey, Jud ge

No. W2006-01856-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled May 24, 2007

The Petitioner, Uly sses Richardson , appeals the tria l court' s denial of his petition for post-c onviction relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial c ourt' s denial of r elief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. The petition for post-conviction re lief fails as it is a sec ond such petition and as it is barr ed by the statute of lim i t at i o n s
. The pe tition simil arly fails if consider ed as a

petition for habe as cor

pus relief , a motion to reope n a petition for p o s t -c o n v i ct i o nre l i ef

o r ap et i t i o nfo r w ri to f erro r co ra m n o b i s
. Ac co rd i n gl y , we gra n tt h e S t at e's mot ion and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he low e r c ourt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of the Tr ialCo ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua ntto Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
J.C. M C L IN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J J ., joined.

Br ett B Stein, Memphis, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Uly sses Richardson.

Ro b e rt E

. Co o p e r , Jr

. , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l & Re p o rte r ; Mi c h a e l M o o r e , So li c it o r G e n e r a l; Re n e e W. Turn e r, As si st ant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . G ibb on s, Di str ic t Attor ne y Ge ne ra l; a

nd B e tsy Carnesa le, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION
The Petitioner Uly sses Richardson wa s convicted of two counts of first deg ree murder. For these off enses, he rec eived c onsecutive life sentenc es, ea ch of which was e nhance d by an additional2

five y ear s beca

use a firea

rm was employ ed in the commission of the offe nses. See State v . Ulysses Richardson , No. 54 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma y 15, 1985), perm. to appeal de nied, (Tenn. Sept. 9, 1985). His convictions and sentences were aff irmed on direc t appea l. On J une 27, 1989, the Petitioner soug ht post-conviction relief, alleging that trial counsel was ineffe ctive. See U lysses Richardson v . S

tate , No. 02C01-9303-CR -0 0 0 3 8 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Jul. 13, 1994), perm. to appeal de nied , (Tenn. N ov. 7, 1994). The lowe r cour t dismi ssed the petiti on as bar red by the statute of limitations. Notwithstanding, the lower c ourt found that trial c ounsel was not ineffe ctive. On direc t appea l, this C ourt held that the pe tition was tim ely filed. Id. Howeve r, the judgme nt of t he lower court was aff irmed as to the conclusion that trial counsel wa s eff ective. Id.

On Marc h 16, 2006, the Petitioner filed a doc ument captioned “ Petition for Post -Conviction Re lie f and /o r for a

Wri t of Er ro r C or a m N ob is a

nd /or fo r a Wri t of Ha be a s Co rp us .” Whil e a c kn ow le dg ingthat th is c on sti tut e d a se c on d p e tit ion , th e Pe tit ion e r state d that “ the iss ue s r a ise d in this petiti on are new gr ounds that wer e not raised in the [ P] etitioner’s previous petition.” As g rounds for r elief, he asser

ted that “the se ntence s of the petitioner to two life s en t ence s to run consec utive
wer e so g rossly disproportionate that the petitioner’s due proce ss r ights . . . we re violate d. The trial
cou rt did not consider the issue of disproportion[alit y ] at the sentencingas such issue wa s not raised.” Additionally , the Petitioner claimed that t h e consecutive sente nces imposed by the trial court “ violated the doctr ine in Blakely [v. W ashington] in that the crite ri a as whether or not the sentenc e sh o u l d have be en run c onsecutively or [con]currently

should have be en submitted to the j u ry wi t h proper

jury instruction at the end of

the ca se.” B y

order enter ed Jul y

21, 2006, the trial
c o u rt s u mm ar il y

d is mi s s e d

th e p e ti ti o na s b ar

r e d b y th e a p p li c a b le s tatute o f

li mi ta tion. A subsequent orde r wa s entere d on Aug ust 2 2, 2006, in which the lower court c larified its Jul y

21, 2006, order

by making the following finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law:

. . . the Court is of the opinion that these issues should have be en ra ised at the trial le ve l and tha t th e re are no t any

ne w i ssu e s r a ise d whi c h w ou ld a llo w the Cou rt to consider g rantingrelief

as pra y ed for by the petitioner.

. . . as t o t he violation of the Blak e ly doctrine a

nd the Court is of the opinion that Blakely i s n o tt o b e a

p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y. The Petitioner filed a

notice of a

ppeal doc ument on Aug ust 25, 2006.

On appe al to this Court , t h e P etitioner asse rts that the post-conviction cour t erre d by
summa ri ly dis mis sin g the pe tit ion

. He a sse rt s th a t a pe tit ion e r s ho uld

be g ive n th e op po rt

un ity to attack h i s s en t en ce at any time if it can be shown that the petitioner’s due proce ss rig hts were violated in the sentenc ing pr ocedur e.. The State has filed a motion requesting that this Court affirm the lower court’s de nial of post-convic tion relief pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of t he Tennessee Court of Criminal Appe als. As basis for its motion, the State asser ts that the petition is t ime-bar red. The State fu rt he r a sse rt s th a t th e Pe tit ion e r’ s c la ims do no t sat isf y the statut or

y e xce pti on s to the tim e ly filing r equire ment.3 1. Post-Conviction

Pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-30-102(a ), a pe rson i n custody under a
se nte nc e of

a c ourt of thi s st a te mus t pe tit ion

fo r po st- 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 t

he hig he st s tate a

pp e llate c ourt to wh ic h a

n a pp e a l is take n or , if

no a pp e a l is taken, within one y ear

of the date on which the judg ment become s final. The statute emphasizes that “[t] ime is of the essenc e of the rig ht to file a petition for post- conviction relief or mot ion to reopen established by

this chapter, a

nd 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). Additionally , section 40-30- 102(c) of the Te nnessee Code Annotated states that the Post- Conviction Act contemplates the filing of only one ( 1) petition for post- conviction relief

.

Whil e due pr ocess dictates that the s tatute of limit ations not be so strictly applied as to de ny a per son the opportu n i t y t o have his c laim hear d and dete rmined at a meaning ful time and in a meaning ful manner , Sta te v . M c Kni gh t, 51 S.W. 3d 55 9 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) ; Seals v. State, 23 S.W .3d 272 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; Burford v. State, 845 S.W .2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) , the excep t i o n s t o the statute of limit ations are expli citly limit ed, i.e., (1) c laims based upon a ne w rule of constit u t ional law applicable to a petitioner' s case , (2) claims based upon new scientific evidenc e showinginnocenc e, and (3) claims based upon e nhance d sentenc es that we re e nhan ce d beca use of c onvictions subsequently

found to be illeg al. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102( b)(1) - (3)

. I n th e pr e se nt c a se , Pe tit ion e r a rgue s th a t he is e nti tle d to po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f b a se d o n h is alleg ation that the trial court imposed the conse cutive life se ntence s in violation of due proce ss and in violation of Blakely

v. W ashington . We cannot conc lude that these pa rticular f actua l
c ir c ums tanc e s to ll the lim itatio ns pe ri od

. T h e P e t i t i o n e r ’ s p o s t- c on vic tio n p e tit ion wa s n ot f ile d unti l Marc h 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 , w e ll b e y o n d th e o n e - y e ar s tatute o f li mi tati o n s
. A d d it io n a ll y , th is Court has pr e vio us ly

he ld that Apprendi/Blakely ty pe iss ue s r e g ard inga llo c a tin g fa c t- fi nd inga uth or ity to judge s during sentenc ing are not in the nar row c lass of proc edura l rules that apply retroa ctively

. See Is aa c He rro n v . S

tate , No. W2004-02533-CCA-R28-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, N ov. 22, 2004)( order). Ac cording ly , the g rounds for relief alleg ed by Petitioner do not f all within any

of the exceptions to the statute of limit ations. Where there is no applicable e x ception, “the rig ht to file a petition for post- conviction relief or a motion to reopen under

this chapter sha ll be exti ng uished upon the expiration of the limitations period.” T.C.A. § 40-30-102( a). Acc ording ly , Petitioner has fa iled to state a c og nizable claim for post- conviction re lief. The tr ial court prope rly denied post-c onviction relief

.

II. Habe as Corpus Relief

The de termination of whe ther to g rant ha beas c orpus re lief is a question of law

. McLaney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) , overruled in part by, Sum mers v. State, 212 S.W .3d 251 (Tenn. 2007). The T ennesse e Co n s t i t u t ion gua rante es a c onvicted cr iminal defenda nt the rig ht to seek4

habea s corpus re lief. SeeTenn. Const. art. I , § 15. Howeve r, t he grounds upon which habe as cor pus relief will be g rante d are very

narr ow. Taylor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999) . A petition for ha beas c o rpus re lief may

only be g rante d when the judg ment is shown to be void, rather than
mere ly voidable. Id. A judg ment is void only when it appe ars upon the fa ce of the judg ment or the
rec ord of the pr ocee dings upon w hich the judg ment is rende red that the convictingcourt wa s without jurisdiction or authority

to sentenc e a defe ndant or that a def endant' s sentence has expired. Archer v. State, 85 1 S. W.2 d 1 57 , 164 (T e nn . 199 3) . On the oth e r hand , a void a ble jud g me nt o r s e nte nc e is one which is fa cially

valid and which r equire s evidenc e b ey o n d the fa ce of the judg ment or the
rec ord of the pr ocee dings to e stablish its invalidity

. Tay lor , 995 S.W .2d at 83.

Ag a in, the Pe tit ion e r r a ise d tw o a lle g a tio ns (1 ) h is s e nte nc e s are dis pr op or tio nate and

(2 ) h is sentenc es we re i m p osed in violation of Blakely v. W ashington . B oth

of the se c la ims fa il. Spe c if ic a lly , b oth

argume nts fa il b e c a

us e e ve n if the a lle g a tio ns are tr ue , s uc h a lle g a tio ns wo uld rende r the ju d gm en t voidable, and not void, unless the f ace of the re cord e stablishes that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to convict or sentenc e the Petitioner. Acc ording ly , the P etitioner has failed to e stablish his entit lement to habea s corpus re lief.

II I. Coram Nob is Relief by petition for writ of err or cora m nobis is provided for

in Tennesse e Code Annotated

se c tio n 4 0- 26 -1 05 . T hat st a tut e pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art :
The relief obtainable by this procee ding sha ll be confine d to error s dehors the r ecor d and to matters that we re not or c ould not have bee n litigated on the trial of the c ase, on a motion for a ne w trial, on appe al in the nature of a writ of er ror, on wr it of err or, or in a ha

beas co rpus proceeding . Upon a showingby the def endant that the defe ndant was w ithout fault in failing to prese nt cer tain evidenc e at the pr oper time,
a wr it of err or cora

m nobis will l ie for subse quently or new ly discovere d evidenc e relating to matter s which wer e litigated at the trial if the judg e dete rmines that such
e vid e nc e may

have re su lte d in

a dif fe re nt jud g me nt, ha d it be e n p re se nte d at th e tr ia l. The issue shall be tr ied by the cour t without the intervent i o n o f a jury , and if the decision be in fa

vor of the petitioner, t he judg ment complained of shall be set aside and the de fenda

nt shall be g rante d a new

trial in that cause

. T.C.A. § 40-26-105. The writ of error cora m nobis is an “ext raor dinary proce dural re medy ,” filling only a “slig ht g ap int o which few ca ses fa ll.” State v. Mix on, 983 S.W .2d 661, 672 (Tenn. 1999) . The “purpose of this remedy

‘is to bring to the attention of the c ourt s o m e fa ct unknown to the cour t which if known would have resulted in a dif fer ent judg ment.’ “ Sta te v . H ar t, 911 S.W .2d 371, 374 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 5 ) ( qu o t i n g State ex rel. Carlson v. State, 219 Tenn. 80, 407 S.W.2d 165, 167 (1966)) . A petition f

or writ of err or cor am nobis must us ually be filed w ithin one (1) y ear afte r the judgme nt becomes f

inal. See T. C.A . § 27 -7 -1 03 ; Mixon, 983 S.W .2d at 670.5

We conclude that the trial court did not er r in deny ing the peti t i o n i f consi dere d as an

a p p li c a ti o n f

o r w r it o f e r

r o r c o r am n o b is

. A p e ti ti o n f o r w r it o f e r

r o r c o r a m n o bis must be filed within one y ear

of the time judg ment become s final in the trial cour t. SeeT. C.A . § 27 -7- 10 3. I t is obvious that the Petiti oner' s petition was filed many y ear s after

the stat u t e o f l i m i tations had run. No thi ngin t

he re c or d s ug g e sts that th e Pe tit ion e r' s c la im f or re lie f i mpl ic a te s any

du e pr oc e ss conce rns that would require a rema nd to the trial court f

or a he aringon the merits. See W orkman v

. State, 41 S.W. 3d

10 0 (T e nn . 2 00 1) . We c on c lud e that th e tr ia l c ourt did no t e rr by summa ri ly dismiss ing the petition.

When an opinion woul d h av e no prece dential value, the Court of Criminal Appeals may
a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt

by me mor and

um opi nion whe n th e jud g me nt i s re nd e re d o r t

he a c tio n ta

ke n in a proce e din g wi tho ut a jur y and su c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a deter mination of guilt, and the evidenc e does not preponde rate ag ainst the findi ng of t he trial judge. See Tenn. R. C t

. C ri m
. Ap p
. 20. We conclude that this case satisfies the c riteria of Rule 20. Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th a t th e State ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d. The ju dg me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is aff irmed in ac corda

nce w ith Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________



### J.C . MCLIN, JUDGE