### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ary 8, 200 5
TON EY L. CON N v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

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

No. 2002-A- 389 Steve D ozier , Judge

No. M2004- 00220-CCA -R3-P C - F iled April 19, 2005

The pe titioner appea ls the summary dismiss al of his pe tition for post-conviction re lief, ar g uing that he should have been a

ppointed post-conviction counse l to assist hi m w ith his petition. We conc lude that th e pe tit ion e r al le g e s a col or able c la im fo r r e lie f u nd e r the le ss s tring e nt s ta nd ard s a ff or de d to
a pro se petitioner and that the petitioner’s re quest for c ounsel should h av e been g rante d. Ac co rd i ng ly , we r ever se the dismissal of the petition and re mand the ca se to the post-convic tion
c ou rt fo r the app oin tme nt o f c ou ns e l.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t R e ve r se d and C as e Rem anded
J.C. M C LIN , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OS EP H M. T I PTON and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined. Toney L . Conn, Nashville, Tenne ssee, Pro Se

. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; B re nt C . Ch e rry , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. Johnson, I I I ., District Attorney Gene ral; and Pame la Ander son, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION

F a c ts
Acc ording to the trial court’s order dismiss ing the petitioner’s pe tition for post-conviction relief , the petitioner wa s convicted of possession with intent to sell twenty -six g rams or more of a schedule I I controlled subst ance , felony possession of a w eapon, posse ssion of drug para pherna lia,O n l y t h e pet i t i on er ’ s pet i t i on for pos t

- con v i ct i on r el i ef an d t h e t r i al c ou r t ’ s or der s a r e i n cl u ded i n t h e r ec or d. 1
T h e re fo re , w e a re a ssu m ing tha t t h e trial c o u rt’s o rd e r d ism issin g the p e tit io n e r’s p o st-co n v ic tio n p e tit io n a c c u ra te ly
re flec ts the p e tit io n e r’s c o n v ic tio n s. W e a re a lso a ssu m ing tha t t h e d a te the p e tit io n e r w a s se n te n c e d is ac c u ra te ly
re flec te d in the p a rtie s’ b rie fs.

T h e r ec or d on l y r ef

l ec t s t h e or der di s mi s s i n g t h e pet i t i on a s t i me bar r ed. 2

-2- and possession of a

controlled substanc e. The pe titioner was sentenced on Aug ust 23, 2002, to an 1 eff ective se ntence of fifte en y ear s. The petitioner did not a ppeal his convic tions or his sentence but subsequently

filed a pro s e fill-in-the-blank “Petition for Relief from Conviction or Sentence ” and “Uniform Civil Affida vit of I ndige ncy ” on J une 13, 2003. The pe titioner alleg ed in his petition the following g rounds for r elief: (1) the conviction was based on use of evidenc e g ained pursuant to an
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s e ar c h a n d s e i z u r e ; ( 2 ) t h e c o n v i c t i o n w a s b a s e d u p o n a c t i o n o f a g r a n d j u r y, unconstitutionally selec ted and impaneled; (3) the denial of eff ective a ssistance of c ounsel; (4) a nd illega l evidencewas obtaine d throug h an unconstitutional sear ch and se izure.

On June 27 , 2 00 3, thepo st- c on vic tio n c ou rt , b y or de r, fo un d th a t th e pe tit ion e r h a d f a ile d to state suffic ient g rounds for his c onstitut ional claims and g ave the petitioner fifte en day s to amend his petition. On J uly

15, 2003, the petitioner filed a m otion for a time ext ension. I n his moti on, the pe tit ion e r s tr e sse d th a t hedid no t unde rs ta ndthela w andfe are d th a t hi s la c k o f u nd e rs ta nd ing wo uld result in waiver

of an issue. H e also c laimed that he did not have acc ess to the trial re cord and that he believe d he should be a ppointed counsel pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 40-30- 106(e)

. As a result, the petitioner asked for either an additional g rant of time or appointment of
c ou ns e l.

OnJuly 27 , 20 03 , by or de r, the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt dis mis se d th e pe tit ion e r’ s pro s e po stconviction petition. T h e post-conviction court found no sufficie nt gr ounds upon which to g rant relief

. Appar ently , on J anuary 5, 2004, the post-conviction court ag ain consider ed the pe titioner’s pro s e pe tit iona nddis mis se d th e pe tit iona s ti me ba rr e d b y theon e y e ar s tatut e of

lim itatio ns
. 2 There afte r, the pe titioner filed an appea l to this Court, along with a motion for the appointment of
c ou ns e l.

An a ly sis

Onapp e a l, the pe tit ion e r a rg ue s that thepo st- c on vic tio n c ou rt imp ro pe rl y

dis mis se d h is pr

o se pe tit ionfo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f w ith out app oin tme nt o f c ou ns e l to a ssi st p e tit ion e r w ithhis petition. Specifically , the petitioner a rg ues that the court knew that the petitioner wa s illi terate and ind ig e nt, a ndthe re fo re , s ho uldha ve app oi ntedc ou ns e l w he n r e qu e ste d b y thepe tit ion e r i n h is mot ionfo r t ime e xten sio n. Th e State dis a g re e s, arg uin g th at th e po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt pr op e rl y dismiss ed the pe tition where the pe titioner offe red nothing to support hi s all eg ations and did not comply with the require ments set forth in Tenne ssee Annotated sec tion 40-30-106.
Whe the r a

po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt

pr op e rl y dis mis se d a pe tit ionfo r f a ilu reto s tate a

c la im i s a q u es t i o n o f law and is theref ore r eviewe d de novo

. Se e B u r n e tt v
. St a te , 9 2 S. W. 3 d 4 0 3 , 406-3-

(Tenn. 2002) ; Fields v. State, 40 S.W .3d 450, 457 (Tenn. 2001). Pursuant to the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t, a post -convic tion petition must specify g rounds for relief inc luding disclosure of the fa ct u al basis of those g rounds. Tenn. Code A nn. § 40-30-106( d). Section 40-30- 106 of the Pos t- Con vic tio n Pr oc e du reAc t pr ov ide s inpe rt ine nt p art : (d) The petition mustcontain a clear and spec ific statement of all g rounds upon wh ic h r e lie f is so ug ht, inc lud ing fu ll dis c los ur e of the fa c tua l ba sis of tho se g ro un ds

. A bar e alleg ation that a constitutional rig ht has been violated and me re c onclusions of law sha ll not be sufficient to wa rrant any further proce eding s. Fa ilure t o s tate a fac tual basis for the g rounds alleg ed shall re sult in i mmediate dismissal of the petition. I f, howe ver, the petition was filed pro se , the judg e may enter an orde r statin g that th e pe tit ion e r mus t f ile a n a me nd e d p e tit ion that c omp lie s w iththi s section within fiftee n (15) day s or the petition will be dismiss ed. (e) I f a pe tition amended in acc ordanc e with subsection (d) is incomplete, the court shall determine w hether

the petitioner is indige nt and in need of counsel. The c ourt may appoint counsel and enter a pre liminary

order if nec essary

to securethe filing of a complete petition. Counsel may file an amende d petition within thirty (30) day s of appointment. (f) Upon re ceipt of a petiti on in proper form, or upon rec eipt of an amended pe tition, the court shall ex amine the a lleg ations of fa ct in th e p et i t ion. I f the fa cts alleg ed, taken a s true, fail to show that the petitioner is e ntitled to relief or f ail to show that thec la ims fo r r e lie f ha ve no t be e n w a ive d o r p re vio us ly de te rm ine d, thepe tit ionsh a ll be dismissed. The orde r of dismissal shall set forth the c ourt' s conclusions of law.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-106(d) -(f ).

I n th e ins ta nt c a se , w e no te that r a the r than a tte mpt ing to ame ndhis pro s e petition, the pe tit ion e r r e qu e ste d a dd iti on a l ti me or , inthea lte rn a tiv e , a pp oin tme nt o f c ou nsel to assi st h im i n prepa ration of his ame nded petition. L ooking to the Tenne ssee Supreme Court Rules, we note that
once a petition is filed, a judgeshall review the petition and determi n e whether the petition states a color able c laim. Tenn. S up. Ct. R. 28, § 6(B )(2) . A colora ble claim is “a

claim in a petition for po st- c on vic tio n re lie f, that, i f t ake n a s tr ue , inthelig ht m os t f

a vo ra bleto p e tit ion e r, wo ulde nti tle petitioner to r elief unde r the Post-Conviction Procedure Act.” A rnold v. State, 143 S.W .3d 784, 786 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting Tenn. S up. Ct. R. 28, § 2(H)). “Post-convic tion relief is available only when ‘the c onviction or sentenc e is void or voidable be cause of t he abridgme nt of any rig ht gua rante ed by the Constitut ion of Tenne ssee or the Constitut ion of the United States.’” I d. (quoting Tenn . Code An n. § 40 -3 0- 20 3)

. I n de te rm ini ng wh e the r a c olo ra ble c la im e xists “ pr o se pe tit ion s are to b e he ld to less stringe nt standards than f ormal plea dings dr afte d by lawy ers.” All en v
. S tate, 854 S.W.2d 87 3, 87 5 ( Te nn . 1 99 3) (c itatio ns omi tte d)

. “ I n the e ve nt a co lor able c la im is sta te d, thejud g e sh a ll
e nte r a pr e lim ina

ry or de r w hic h .

. . app oin ts c ou ns e l, if pe tit ion e r i s in dig e nt. ” Te nn . Su p. Ct. R. 28 , § 6( B )( 3) (a ). “ I n th e e ve nt the c ou rt c on c lud e s af te r the pr e lim ina

ry re vie w that a

c olo ra blec la im is not a s s e rte d b y th e p e ti ti o n , th e c o u rt s h a ll e n ter a n o r d e r d is mi s s in g th e p e ti ti o n o r a n order requiring that the petition be amende d.” I d. at § 6(B )(4) (a)

. Howeve r, “[n] o pro se petition shall be-4-

dis mis se d f

or failu reto f

oll ow the pr e sc ri be d fo rm un til thec ou rt ha s g ive n p e tit ion e r a

re a so na ble opportunity

to amend the pe tition with thea ssi stanc e of c ou ns e l.” I d. a t § 6 (B )( 4) (b ) ( e mph a sis added) ; see a lso Allen, 854 S.W .2d at 875.

Al tho ug h th e iss ue is c los e , w e de te rm inethat, w he n v ie we d inthe lig ht mos t fa vo ra bleto pe tit ion e r, thepe tit ion e r’ s c la ims pr e se nte d inhis orig ina l pro se petition, along w ith the petitioner’s
s u b s eq u en tre q u es tfo r c o u n s el , en t i t l e h i m t o t h e a p p o i n t m en to f c o u n s el t o ai d h i mi n d ra ft i n g a mor e c omp le te pe tit ion

. Th us , whe n re qu e ste d by thepe tit ion e r, thepo st- c on vic tio n c ou rt sh ou ld have ap p o i n t ed co u n s el t o as s i s th i m
. C o n s eq u en t l y , t h e d i s m i s s al o f t h e p et i t i o n er ’s p o s t -c o n v iction pe tit ionis r e ve rs e d a ndthec a se is r e ma nd e d f or app oin tme nt o f c ou ns e l.

___________________________________ J .C. McL IN, J UDGE