### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 25, 200 5

JAM ES SP U R LI N G v

. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

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

No. 04-283 Car roll L. Ross, Jud ge

No. E2005-00004-CC A-R3- P C - F iled Novem ber 30, 2005

The pe titioner, J ames T. Spurling, appeals the post-c onviction court’s summary dismiss al of his pro

se petition a s untimely

. Be cause the petitioner’s claims, when taken as tr u e, al l ege attorney misrepre sentation conc erning the f il in g o f a p o s t- conviction petition, we conc lude that an e videntiary he ari ng is n e c e ssary to det erm ine : ( 1) wh e the r d ue pr oc e ss t oll e d th e lim itatio ns pe ri odbe c a us e counsel did, in fac t, assure the petitioner that he would continue his re prese ntation throug h the filing of a po st- c on vic tio n pe tit ion ; a nd if so , (2 ) wh e the r the pe tit ion e r wa s wi thi n t he rea so na ble opportunity

aff orded him by

due proces s

. T h ere fore , we r ever se the post-c onviction court’s dismiss al of the pe tition and remand the ma tter for an evide ntiary

hearing.

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 Rem anded

J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J.
, d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in w hich D A VI D G. H AYES and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined.

D. M itchell Bry ant, C leveland, Tennesse e (on appea l); and J ames S purling
, Pro Se (at trial), for the appellant, James Spurling.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter ; Blind Akrawi, Assi stant Attorney Gene ral; and J erry N. Estes, District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
OP IN ION

Fa cts and Proce dural History

The pe titioner was convic ted by a jury of t he off enses of attempted first de g ree murder a nd
assault with a dea dly

wea pon. The trial c ourt merg ed the as s au l t co n viction into the attempted murder conviction and sentenc ed the defe ndant to twe nty -three y ear s. A pane l of this court aff irmed the judg ment on direc t appea l, and the supre me court denied the pe titioner’s Rule 11 application for permission to appea l on Marc h 17, 2003. See S tate v. J ames S purling , No. E2001-00601- CCA-R3--2-

CD, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 962 (Tenn. C rim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Nov. 7, 2002) app. de nied (Tenn. Ma

r. 17, 2003).

On Au gu s t 9
, 2 0 0 4
, t h e p et i t i o n er fi l ed a p ro s e p et i t i o n fo r p o s t -c o n v i ct i o n re l i ef co n t en d i n g, int e r a lia , th a t th e po st- c on vic tio n s ta tut e of lim itatio ns sh ou ld tol l bec a us e tr ia l c ou ns e l f a ile d to fi le his post-conviction petition as she assure d him she would and because the clerk’s off ice e ither fa iled
to rec eive or

to properly file a prior pro se pe tition m ailed by the petitioner. Spec ifically , the petition al l ege d t h e f

o l l o wi n g: T h e P e t i t i o n e r

a l s o w a s t o l d b y

h i s “ t h e n ” a t t o r n e y

t h a ts h e w o u l d t ak e c ar e o f his post-conviction. Afte r he never hear d anything he beg an inquiring into the status of h i s P

. C

. Petition, which were never answe red by

any one. The Petitioner g ot assistance from anothe r imate [sic] who prepare d a Petition for him and the Petitioner mailed it t o the Court in McMinn County . The Petitioner’s f amily contac ted the Cou rt a ndfo un d th a t, a c c or din g to the m, that no thi ng ha d be e n re c e ive d by the m. A ll of which ha s denied the Petitioner acc ess to the Courts and his rig ht to Petit ion for post-conviction re lief as outlined in TCA 40-30-201 e t seq.. On Aug ust 23, 2004, the post-conviction court a ppointed counsel a nd order ed an ame nded petition, if ne c e ssa ry , to be fi le d w ith in thirty da y s. On Oc tob e r 6 , 200 4, the Sta te fi le d a mot ion to d ism iss
, based upon the peti ti o ner’ s untimelyfiling. The post-conviction court summarily g rante d the motion

a nddis mis se d th e pe tit ion on No ve mbe r 2 9, 20 04 . T he pe tit ion e r n ow app e a ls t o th is c ou rt , contending that the post-conviction statute of limitati o n s should be tolled due to counsel’ s failure to timelyfile the post-c onviction petition and the failure of t he clerk’s office to file hi s previous pro se petition. The State ave rs that the petitioner f ailed to de monstrate any rea son why the statute of limit ations should be tol led and further c ontends that the petitioner pr esents no evide nce to support his claims.

An a ly sis

A petition for post-convic tion relief must be filed within one y ear of the fina l action of the highe st state appellate court to which an a ppeal is take n or, if no appe al is taken, within one y ear of the date on which the judgme nt became final or c onsideration of the petition is barred. Te nn. Code An n. § 4 0- 30 -1 02 (a ). Ti me is of the e sse nc e in c la imi ng po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f, a ndc omp lia nc e wi th the one- y ear

statute is an eleme nt of the rig ht to file a petition. I d. The statute itself provides thre e exceptions to the one-y ear statute of limitations: (1) whe n a n ew co n s tituti onal rig ht has bee n
rec og nized; (2) when the petitioner’s innocenc e has been established by new scientific evidenc e; or (3) whe n a pre vious conviction that en h ance d the petitioner’s se ntence has bee n held invalid. I d. § 4 0- 30 -1 02 (b ). Th e pe tition e r co nc e de s in hi s b ri e f t hat no ne of

the se e xce pti on s a

re app lic able in the pre sent ca se.

Ra the r, the pe tit ion e r a

rg ue s th a t th e st atu te of

lim itatio ns sh ou ld b e tol le d b y du e pr oc e ss considerations pursuant to St ate v. Williams, 44 S .W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001). That case involved an

un tim e ly pr o s e pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f f ile d f oll ow ing c ou ns e l’ s f

a ilu re to p ro pe rl y wi thdra w f

ro m r e pr e se ntatio n u po n th e c on c lus ion of a dir e c t app e a l. Spe c if ic a lly
, the pe tit ion e r i n-3-

Wil liams alleg ed that he w as unaw are of the fina lityof his conviction as a result of the attor n ey ’s actions. As a r esult, the supreme court re manded f or an e videntiary h earing on the issue of due pr oc e s s t o l l i n g , s p e c i f

i c a l l y n o t i n g t h a t “ [i ]f a d e f e n d a n t e rr o n e o u s l y b e l i e v e s t h a t c o u n se l is

c on tin uin g to r e pr e se nt h im or he r, the n the de fe nd a nt is ess e nti a lly pr e c lud e d f

ro m pu rs uin g c e rt a in

reme dies independe ntly

. For example, it is well-e stablished that defe ndants are g ener ally restric ted from re prese nting themse lves while s imultaneously being repr esente d by counsel.” I d. at 469. The

su pr e me c ou rt fu rthe r no te d that its ho ldi ng wa s c on fi ne d to mis re pr e se ntatio ns by c ou ns e l a nddid not excuse an untimely

filing attributable to counsel’s ne g lige nce. See id. at 468 n.7.

To rule b as ed upon the pleading s, the post-conviction court was oblig ated to ac cept the allegat i o n s i n t h e p etition as true. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 106(f) . I n the pre sent ca se, the pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t: ( 1) he re lie d o n tria l c ou ns e l’ s a ssu ranc e s tha t sh e wo uldfi le a po stconviction petition; and (2) a prior pro se petit ion was either not rec eived or not properly

filed by the
tr ia l cou rt c le rk ’s of

fi c e . T he re fo re , th e pe tit ion e r e ff e c tiv e ly a lle g e s th a t c ou ns e l mi sle d h im i nto believing that she would be r epre senting him through the filing of a post-convic tion petition.

Be cause of the nature of the first claim in pa rticular, w e conc lude that an e videntiary hearing is nece ssary

to more fully

develop the r ecor d in order to de termine (1) whether due proc ess tolled the lim itatio ns pe ri odso a s to g rant the pe tit ion e r a re a so na ble op po rtun ity

to p re sent hi s c la im i n
a meaning ful time and manner and, if so, (2) whe ther the pe titioner’s pro se pe tition was within t he

rea sonable opportunity

aff orded to him by

due proc ess. See Williams, 44 S .W.3d at 471.

Conclusion

We reve rse the post-c onviction court’s s u m m ar y d ismiss al of the pe tition and remand the matter for an evide ntiary

hearing.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE