### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 2, 200 4 RA ND ALL WAT SON v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. F -27209 Bernie We inman, Judge

No. W2003-02399-C CA-R 3-HC - F iled Jul y 20, 2004

The De fenda nt, Randall W at s on, pled g uiltyto second de g ree murder. H e subseque ntly filed a pe tit ion fo r h abe a s cor

pu s re lie f. Af

te r co ns ide ri ng the De fe nd a nt’ s pet iti on a s pre se nte d a nda lso a s a pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vict io n rel ie f, the tr ia l c ou rt dis mis se d th e De fe nd a nt’ s p le a din g . T his appea l followed. We aff

irm the trial court’s judgme nt. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined.
Br ett Stein, Memphis, Tennessee , for the a ppellant, Randall Watson. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Thomas E. Wil liams, I I I , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; Wil liam L

. Gibbons, District Attorney Gene ral; and Emily Campbell, Assis t an t Di s t rict Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .

OP IN ION
The De fenda nt was indicted for first deg ree preme ditated murder in July 1994 for a killing he c omm itt e d ea

rl ie r that y e ar. Th e De fe nd a nt s ub se qu e ntl y ple d g uil ty

to s e c on d d e g re e mur de r i n exchang e for an agr eed Rang e I I I sentenc e of fifty y ear s. J udg ment was e ntere d on October 7, 1996.

On Fe bruary

14, 2003, the Def

endant f ile d a petition for habe as cor pus relief alleg ing that his sentence was illega l a nd the judgme nt a g ainst him ther efor e void. The State responde d that the Def endant’ s sentence was not illeg al and that the pe tition was further time-barr ed. A brief he aring wa s hel d, a ft e r wh ic h the tr ia l cou rt dis mis se d th e De fe nd a nt’ s p e tit ion on the ba sis that it wa s b oth without merit and barr ed by the statute of limitations. This di rec t appea l followed.-2-

Th e De fe nd a nt’ s c la im tha t he is b e ing ill e g a lly res tr aineddu e to an il le g a l se nte nc e is wi t h o u tm er i t

. S ee gen er al l y Bl an d v . Du k es , 9 7 S

. W

. 3 d 1 3 3 (T en n . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 2 ). Al t h o u gh t h e D ef en d an tcl ai m s t h at h e d o es n o th av e s u ff i ci en tp ri o r f

el o n y co n v i ct i o n s t o q u al i fyfo r aR an ge I I I sentenc e, a de fenda nt may leg ally ag ree to be sentenc ed withi n a particular rang e pursua nt to a neg otiated plea a g ree ment, even if he or she would not otherwise f all within that sentencing rang e. See Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Ma h l er , 7 3 5 S

. W .2d 226, 228 (Tenn. 1987)

. I n this c ase, the Def endant ag ree d to a fifty

y ear sentenc e for

a Class A fe lony . The full sentencing rang e for a Class A felony is f ifteen to sixtyy ear s. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 11 2( a)(1 ), ( c)(1 ). A ccor di ngly , t he D efen dan t’ s s ent ence d oes no t co nt rave ne t he ap pl ica bl e st atut e s, his se ntence is not illega l, his judgme nt is not void on its face , and his claim for habea s corpus re lief was prope rly

dismiss ed as be ing w ithout merit.
Th e De fe nd a nt a lso raise d a t th e he ari ng a c la im that he ha d b e e n d e prive d o f h is d ue pr oc e ss ri g hts in c on

jun c tio n w ith his pr e -p le a mot ion to s up pr e ss. Ac c or din g ly , th e tr ia l c ou rt a lso con s i d er ed t he De fenda nt’s petition as one for post-conviction re lief. See id. § 40-30- 105(c)

. Howeve r, the trial c ourt furthe r found that, as a petiti on for post-conviction relief , the Def endant’ s pleading was time-ba

rre d. The De fenda nt’s judgme nt beca me final in 1996. The Defendant did not file his petition until 2003. Petitions for post-c onviction relief must be f iled within one y ear

of the time judgment be comes fina l. See id. § 40-30-102( a). We a g ree with th e trial court that the De fe nd a nt’ s p e tit ion is b arr e d b y the statut e of

lim itatio ns . Th e De fe nd a nt a

rg ue s th a t “ du e pr oc e ss” sh ou ld t oll the ru nn ing of the statut e of

lim itatio ns . Specifica lly , the Def

endant c ontends that “the transcript of the Motio n t o S uppress indicates that [hi s] due proce ss rig hts wer e viol ated in the s tatement that he gave the pol ice of fice rs and the T rial Ju d g e e rr e d , a s a

matt e r o f d u e p r o c e s s , in n o t s u p p r e s s in g [h is ] s tate me n t. ” T h e D efe ndant’s arg ument is mispl ace d. Our supre me court has ac knowledg ed t h at , u n der c erta in very limit ed circ umstances, due proce ss considerations may require a tol ling of the statute of limitations: “due proce ss may prohibit stric t a pplication of the statute of limitations i n a post-convic tion case ‘ when the g round s fo r re l i ef , whether leg al or fa ctual, arise afte r . . . the point at which the limit ations period would norma lly

have b egu n to run.’” Sample v. State, 82 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Tenn. 2002) (quoting Sands v. State, 903 S.W .2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995)). The asserted g round for relief raised by the Defenda nt -- that police of fice rs somehow violated his rig hts during que stioning -- arose prior to the Def endant’ s g uilty plea. Moreove r, the Def endant could have a

ppeale d the trial court’s ruling on his motion to suppr ess. He chose not to do so. The Def endant ther eby

waived any

asserted due proce ss claim he mig ht have ha d in conjunction with his statement. The Def endant ha s not identified a n y d u e p r o c e s s v i o l a t i o n t h a tm i g h tg i v e r i s e t o a t o l l i n g o f t h e s t a t u t e o f

l i m i t a t i o n s . A c c o r d i n g l y, thi s is su e is a lso wi tho ut m e ri t.
We c o n c lu d e th a t th e tria l c o u r t d idn o t e r r b y d is mi s s in g the Defenda nt’ s p e ti ti o n . We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt

.-3- ___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE