### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE August 2000 Session at J ackson THOMAS J. WILLIAMS v. STATE OF TENN ESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hickman County No. 00-5002C-II, Timothy L. Easter, Judge

No. M2000-00506-CCA-R3-PC - Filed September 22, 2000

Thomas J. Williams appeals fr om the Hickman Count

y Circuit Court’s denial of h

is pro se petition for post-conviction relief. After review, we find the trial cour t’s summary d

ismissal proper be

cause the petition ( 1) is time barre d; (2) fails to state a colorable claim; and (3) raises claims which are waivedas they were not raised in previous petitions. Accordingly , we affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Ju dgment of the Circ

uit Court is affirme

d. D AVID G. H AYES , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J AMES C URWOOD W ITT , J R ., J. and J OHN E VERETT W ILLI AMS , J., joined. Thomas J. Williams, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers , Atto rney General and Reporter, Michael Moore, Solicitor Gener al, Marvin E. Clements, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION The appellant , Thomas J . William s, proceedi ng pro se , appealsthe summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed by the trial court upon grounds that it was time-barred. The appellant, arguing that the crimes for which he was convicted occur

red in Davidson County and no

t in Hickman County

, avers that his pe

tition is not subject to the statute of limitations. After review of the appellant’s petition, we affirm the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief.. As alleged in

the appell ant's petition for post-c onviction relief,

the appellant ent

ered guilty pleas on July 13, 1987, for the offens es of as sau lt w ith int ent to m urd er wi th b odi ly in jur y,1 The trial court noted that "the petitioner's most recent petition f

or post-convict

ion relief was denied by the tri

al court after a hear

ing, and that

judgment was aff

irmed by the tr

ial court after

a hearing, an

d that judgment wa

s affir med by the Court

of Crimi nal Appeals

on January

12, 1995. T herefore, the petitioner mu st have filed for re lief, if at all, within one year of the date of the fi nal action of the highest state appellate court to which an appeal was taken. That date would have been Januar

y 12, 1996. .. ." Although the court correctly reci ted the pertinent law, t

he court's interpretat

ion of the (continued ...) -2- aggravated

kidnappin g, and armed robbery. These convictions resulted in an effective sentence of life imprisonment. No direct appeal was taken. The appellant is presently incarcera ted at the Lois DeBerry Special Needs F

acility in Nashville. On January 5, 2000, the appella

nt filed the instant pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging that t

he trial "court l

acked jurisdictio

n to deal with this matter

in any form, jurisdiction can be raised in a

ny court at a

ny time." Spe

cifically, the petition alleg

es: The Hickman County

grand jury

could not indict and bound [sic] the petitioner over to the Hickman County Circuit Court for any robbery, attempted murder, and or kidnapping that had occurred in Davidson County, Tennessee. Petitioner was not legall yindicte d in Davidson County, to have a change of venue made to Hickman Cou nty, Tennessee, ther

efore petitione

r never being l

egally ind icted in the county where his offense had occurred, then no rights of the accus ed in a criminal prosecution was ever afforded the petitioner, because he was nev er indicted, ther efore Hickman County, lacked jurisdiction of the person and

subject matter in i

ts Circuit Court, and petitioner's sentence is completely void.
On February 17, 2000, the trial court dismissed the petition as being time-ba rred. In i ts order, the trial court co

rrectly noted that this is the appellant's third petition for post-conviction relief. See , e.g. , Thomas Jeffrey Williams v. State , No. 01C01-9406-CC -00209 (Tenn. Cri

m. App. a t Nashville, Jan. 12, 1995), perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. Sept. 25, 1 995) (challeng ing voluntarines s of guilty plea

andconstitutionality

of range I I sentence) ; Thomas Jeffrey Williams v. State , No. 89- 107- III (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Apr. 18, 1990), perm. to appeal denied , (Tenn. Sept. 2 4 , 1990) (challenging voluntarine ss of gui lty plea). In summarily dismissing the petition, the court found: The Petitioner's attack on his convictions in this case have been previously waived because the grounds state

d in the current pe

tition were not included in his first or second petition for post-conviction relief. [and] Pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-202, the Petition is time barred by a one year s

tatute of limitation . The subje ct pe tition was filed in the Hickman County Circuit Court on January 5, 2000. . . .[ 1 ]1 (...continue d) law is i ncorrect . A petit

ioner has

"one year of

the date of the final act ion of the highest stat

e appellate court to which [a direct] appeal is

taken or;

if no appea

l is t aken, wi thin one (1) year of the date on which the judgmen t became final." See Tenn. C ode Ann . § 40-30 -202(a)(1 997).

2 The appellan

t did so, his fi rst pet ition w as fil

ed February

9, 1989, and his second peti tion was filed July 13, 1990. -3- The appellant's convictions became final on August 13, 1987 . Under the statute of limitation in effect at th

e time, the ap pellant had until Au gust 13, 1990, in wh

ich to file a petitio

n for postco nviction relief. 2 See generally Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 ( repealed 1995). In the case su b judice , the petition was filed on January 5, 2000, well outside

the applicable

limitations period. Cf

. Carter v. State , 952 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Tenn. 1997) (the 1995 Post-Conviction Act does not extend the limitations period for those petitioners for whom the statute of limitations expired prior to the effectivedate of the new Act, i.e. , May 10, 1995). Moreover, the appellant has failed to assert any claim that would exempt him from the statute of limitations. See Tenn. Cod e Ann. § 40-30-202 (1997). In addition to finding the petition time-barred, the appellant has failed to show why the cla

im forr elief was not previously presented in any earlier proceeding. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30

- 204(e); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 §5(e), (f). Where a post-conviction petition has been filed and resolved on its merits by a

court of comp

eten t jurisdiction, any subsequent petition is to be dismissed summarily. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(c). For the above stated reasons, we affirm the trial court’s summary dismissal of the appellant’s third petition for post-conviction relief.

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE