### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE
AT NASHVILL E

Ass ig ne d o n B rie fs Ju ne 19 , 20 12

FRANCISCO MI QUEL JO SE v . STATE O F TENNESSE E

A p p e a l f r o m t h e C r i m i n a l C o u r t f o r P u t n a m C o u n t y
N o

. 1 1

- 0 2 5 5 L e o n C

. B u r n s , J r

. , J u d g e

N o

. M 2 0 1 1

- 0 0 2 9 5

- C C A

- R 3

- P C

- F i l e d S e p t e m b e r 2 8
, 2 0 1 2

T h e P etitio n er, F ran cisco M iq u el Jo se, ap p eals f ro m th e P u tn am C o u n ty C rim in al C o u rt’s 1

d en ial o f h is p etitio n f

o r p o st-co n v ictio n relief

. O n ap p eal, h e co n ten d s th at h is 2 0 0 4 g u ilty

p lea to m isd em ean o r th ef t o f p ro p erty w as n o t k n o w in g ly m ad e b ecau se h e w as n o t ad v ised

o f th e im m ig ratio n co n seq u en ces o f h is g u ilty p lea, th at th e statu te o f lim itatio n s sh o u ld b e
to lled b ecau se P ad illa v

. K en tu ck y , 1 3 0 S

. C t. 1 4 7 3 (2 0 1 0 ), an n o u n ced a n ew r u le o f

co n stitu tio n a l l aw th at d id n o t ex ist at th e tim e o f h is p lea, an d th at d u e p ro cess req u ires

to llin g o f th e statu te o f lim itatio n s d u e to th e circu m stan ces su rro u n d in g h is g u ilty p lea. We
af f irm th e j u d g m en t o f

th e trial co u rt.\

T e n n

. R

. A p p

. P

. 3 A p p e a l a s o f R i g h t ; J u d g m e n t o f t h e C r i m i n a l C o u r t A f f i r m e d

J O S E P H M

. T IP T O N
, P

. J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e c o u r t

, i n w h i c h T H O M A S T

. W O O D A LL

a n d J O H N E V E R E T T W ILL IA M S

, J J

. , j o i n e d

.

W i l l i a m F

. R o b e r s o n , J r

. , C o o k e v i l l e , T e n n e s s e e , f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t

, F r a n c i s c o M i g u e l J o s e

.

R o b e r t E

. C o o p e r , J r

. , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l a n d R e p o r t e r ; R a c h e l E

. W i l l i s , S e n i o r C o u n s e l ;
R a n d a l l A

. Y o r k

, D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; a n d B e t h W i l l i s a n d D o u g l a s E

. C r a w f o r d

, A s s i s t a n t D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y s G e n e r a l

, f o r t h e a p p e l l e e , S t a t e o f T e n n e s s e e

.

T he Pet it ion er ’s name app ear s as Fra nci sco Mi que l J ose on the war ra nt for the con victi on off ens e, 1

whic h al so con ta ins the genera l ses si ons cou rt ’s j udgm ent

. His name app ear s as Fra nci sco J ose on the guilt y ple a doc um ent s. His name a p p e a r s a s F r a nci sco Mi guel J ose on the pos t- con victi on pet it ion

. His
imm igrat ion at tor ney’s af fi davit ide nti fi es him a s Fra nci sco Mi que l J ose and Mi que l J o s e F r a n ci sco

. We
have us ed t he P et it ion er ’s name as it app ear s on th e c har ging inst rument and j udgm ent doc um ent

.O P I N I O N

T h e P etitio n er states th at h is f irst lan g u ag e is A cateco

, a M a y a n l a n g u ag e. H e

p lead ed g u ilty

, p ro se, in g en eral sessio n s co u rt o n D ecem b er 2 0

, 2 0 0 4

. A S p an ish -sp eak in g in terp reter w as p resen t at th e h earin g

. T h e co u rt d id n o t ad v ise h im o f an y im m ig ratio n

co n seq u en ces th at m ig h t resu lt f ro m h is g u ilty p lea. H e f

iled h is p o st-co n v ictio n p etitio n o n M arch 3 0

, 2 0 1 1

, alleg in g th at h is g u ilty p lea w as n o t k n o w in g b ecau se h e w a s n o t

rep resen ted b y co u n sel, d i d n o t h a v e an in terp reter w h o sp o k e h is lan g u ag e, an d w as n o t ad v ised o f

th e im m ig ratio n co n seq u en ces o f h is p lea.

A t th e p o st-co n v ictio n h earin g , L ee Wian t, a certif ied S p an ish -lan g u ag e in terp reter, testif ied t ha t t he r e we r e a

ppr oxim ately tw en ty -th ree o r tw en ty -f o u r M ay an lan g u ag es sp o k en in G u atem ala. H e said th at h e listen ed to th e P etitio n e r s p e ak th e P etitio n er’s n ativ e lan g u ag e at a p rev io u s co u rt ap p earan ce an d th at th e lan g u ag e w as n o t S p an ish

. H e said th at
A cateco an d S p an ish w ere d if f eren t lan g u ag es an d th at n u m ero u s in d ig en o u s l a n g u ag es

ex isted in L atin A m erica b ef o re th e arriv al o f S p an ish ex p lo rers in th e 1 5 0 0 s. H e said th at

a p erso n w h o sp o k e A cateco w o u ld u n d erstan d o n ly a f ew w o rd s o f

S p an ish

.

M r. Wian t testif

ied th at C h elsea S m ith

, th e in terp reter at th e P etitio n er’s g u ilty p lea
h earin g , w as a certif

ied S p an ish -lan g u ag e in terp reter an d a n ativ e o f C u b a. H e d o u b ted th at sh e sp o k e A cateco

, w h ich h e said w as sp o k en in G u atem ala an d M ex ico

. H e said th ere w ere

o n ly 4 0 ,0 0 0 to 5 0 ,0 0 0 p eo p le in th e w o rld w h o sp o k e A cateco . O n cro ss-ex am in atio n , h e

co n ced ed th at h e d id n o t k n o w w h eth er th e P etitio n er co u ld sp eak so m e S p an ish

, alth o u g h
h e th o u g h t it w as u n lik ely

.

T h e P etitio n er testif

ied , aid ed b y a p erso n w h o sp o k e A cateco an d S p an ish , w h o in

tu rn w as aid ed b y a certif ied S p a n i s h in terp reter. T h e P etitio n er testif ied th at h e d id n o t

u n d erstan d w h at h e w as d o in g in 2 0 0 4 w h en h e p lead ed g u ilty to th ef t. H e said h e th o u g h t
h e w as j u st say in g h e w as g u ilty

. H e said h e d i d n o t h a v e an A cateco in terp reter at th e h earin g , o n ly a S p an ish in terp reter. H e said h e co u ld u n d erstan d v ery little S p an ish in 2 0 0 4

. H e said h e d id n o t u n d erstan d an y th in g d u r i n g th e p lea p ro cess. H e stated h e co u ld o n ly

an sw er “y es, y es, y es” to th e q u estio n s ask ed at th e h earin g

. H e said th at h e m ay h av e b een ad v ised in S p an ish o f h is rig h t to an atto rn ey b u t th at h e d id n o t u n d erstan d it. H e said n o

o n e ad v ised h im o f an y im m ig ratio n co n seq u en ces o f h is g u ilty p lea. H e said h e w o u ld h av e lo o k ed f o r an atto rn ey if so m eo n e h ad ex p lain ed th e im m ig ratio n co n seq u en ces. H e d id n o t

u n d erstan d th e rig h t to h av e h is case p resen ted to th e g ran d j u ry o r to a p relim in ary h earin g

. H e said th at h e co u ld n o w u n d erstan d a f ew w o rd s in S p an ish an d E n g lish b u t th at h e b etter

u n d ersto o d th in g s if

th ey w ere ex p lain ed to h im

in A cateco

.

-2-T h e P etitio n er testif ied th at h e h ad an im m ig ratio n law y er in A tlan ta an d an A cateco

lan g u ag e in terp reter, th ro u g h w h o m h e co m m u n icated w ith th e im m ig ratio n law y er an d th e j u d g e. H e said h e w as seek in g resid en cy statu s in th e U n ited S tates in o rd er to b e w ith h is
ch ild ren

. H e sa i d t h a t a l t h o u g h h e w as leg ally in th e U n ited S tates, h e w as in d an g er o f
lo sin g th is statu s b ecau se o f th e th ef t co n v ictio n

.

A f ter receiv in g th e p ro o f

, th e trial co u rt ru led th at th e p etitio n w as n o t f iled w ith in
th e o n e-y ear st a tu te o f lim itatio n s an d th at th e P ad illa ru lin g d id n o t req u ire retro activ e

ap p licatio n . T h e co u rt d en ied relief . T h is ap p eal f

o llo w ed

.

A p e t i t i o n f

o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f m u s t b e f i l e d w i t h i n o n e y e a r o f

t h e f i n a l a c t i o n b y t h e h i g h e s t s t a t e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o w h i c h a n a p p e a l i s m a d e o r w i t h i n o n e y e a r o f t h e t r i a l

c o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n t b e c o m i n g f i n a l

. T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 0

- 1 0 2 ( a ) ( 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s f o r

t o l l i n g o f t h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s i n l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s , o n e o f w h i c h i s i f :

T h e c l a i m i n t h e p e t i t i o n i s b a s e d u p o n a f i n a l r u l i n g o f a n

a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e s t a b l i s h i n g a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t h a t w a s n o t

r e c o g n i z e d a s e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l

, i f r e t r o s p e c t i v e

a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h a t r i g h t i s r e q u i r e d

. T h e p e t i t i o n m u s t b e f i l e d

w i t h i n o n e ( 1 ) y e a r o f t h e r u l i n g o f t h e h i g h e s t s t a t e a p p e l l a t e

c o u r t o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s s u p r e m e c o u r t e s t a b l i s h i n g a

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t h a t w a s n o t r e c o g n i z e d a s e x i s t i n g a t t h e

t i m e o f t r i a l [

. ]

I d

. § 4 0

- 3 0

- 1 0 2 ( b ) ( 2 )

. I n a d d i t i o n , p r i n c i p l e s o f d u e p r o c e s s m a y a l l o w 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 i n l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s

. S e e B u r f o r d v

. S t a t e , 8 4 5 S

. W

. 2 d 2 0 4

, 2 0 8 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 2 ) ( “ [ D ] u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s t h a t p o t e n t i a l l i t i g a n t s b e p r o v i d e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h e

p r e s e n t a t i o n o f c l a i m s a t a m e a n i n g f u l t i m e a n d i n a m e a n i n g f u l m a n n e r

. ” )

.

In P ad illa, th e C o u rt h eld th at an atto rn e y ’s f ailu re to ad v ise a d ef

en d an t th at h is

g u ilty p lea to an o f

f en se f o r w h ich f

ed eral im m ig ratio n law p ro v id ed f o r d ep o rt a t i o n w a s d ef icien t p erf

o rm an ce, th e f

irst p ro n g o f an in ef

f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel claim

. P ad illa,

1 3 0 S

. C t

. at 1 4 8 3 -8 4 ; see S trick lan d v

. Wash in g to n , 4 6 6 U .S

. 6 6 8 (1 9 8 4 ) (in ef f ectiv e assistan ce o f co u n sel). P ad illa also stan d s f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th at w h en th e co n seq u en ces

o f crim in al ch arg es are n o t clear, an atto rn ey m u st ad v ise h is clien t o f th e ri s k o f ad v erse im m ig ratio n co n seq u en ces. P ad illa, 1 3 0 S

. C t. at 1 4 8 3

. T h e C o u rt rej ected th e n o tio n , to

w h ich sev eral state co u rts an d f ed eral circu its su b scrib ed

, th at f o r th e p u rp o ses o f d ef

in in g

co u n sel’s o b lig atio n to p ro v id e ef f ectiv e assistan ce, a d istin ctio n co u ld b e d raw n b etw een d irect an d co llateral co n seq u en ces o f crim in al p ro ceed in g s in cases in v o lv in g im m ig ratio n

-3-issu es. Id

. at 1 4 8 1

. B ef o re th e P ad illa d ecisio n , T en n essee w as o n e o f th e j u risd ictio n s th at
h eld th at b ecau se d ep o rtatio n w as a co llateral co n seq u en ce o f a g u ilty p lea, an a t t o r n e y ’s

p erf o rm an ce w as n o t d ef

icien t f o r f ailin g to ad v ise h is clien t o f th at co n seq u en ce. S ee B au tista v . S tate, 1 6 0 S .W.3 d 9 1 7 , 9 2 1 -2 2 (T en n . C rim . A p p . 2 0 0 4 ).

T h is co u rt h as said th at P ad illa an n o u n ced a n ew ru le o f law b u t th at th e ru le is n o t

en titled to retro activ e ap p licatio n

. S ee, e.g ., R en e S

. G u ev ara v

. S tate, N o

. W2 0 1 1 -0 0 2 0 7

- C C A -R 3 -P C (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. M ar. 1 3

, 2 0 1 2 ), p erm

. ap p

. d en ied (T en n

. A u g

. 1 6

, 2 0 1 2 );

M ik e D w ay

n e R ah m in g v

. S tate, N o

. M 2 0 1 1 -0 1 5 7 4 -C C A -R 3 -P C (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. A u g

. 1

, 2 0 1 2 ), reh ’g d eni e d ( Ma r

. 5, 201 2 ); Iv an o S tam eg n a v

. S tate, N o

. E 2 0 1 1 -0 0 1 9 7 -C C A -R 3

- P C ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. N o v

. 2 9

, 2 0 1 1 ). T h e issu e is p resen tly p en d in g b ef o re th e U n ited
S tates S u p rem e C o u rt. S ee C h aid ez v

. U n i t e d S t a t es, 6 5 5 F .3 d 6 8 4 (N .D

. Ill. 2 0 1 1 ), cert.

g ran ted , 1 3 2 S . C t. 2 1 0 1 (A p r. 3 0 , 2 0 1 2 ). B ecau se th is co u rt h as said th at th e P ad illa ru le
d o es n o t a p p ly retro activ ely

, th e statu to ry ex cep tio n to th e p o st-co n v ictio n statu te o f
lim itatio n s f

o r a n ew ru le o f co n st i t u t i o n al law d o es n o t ap p ly

. S ee T

. C

. A

. § 4 0

- 3 0

- 1 0 2 (b )(2 ) (2 0 0 6 ).

If th e P etitio n er is en titled to h av e h is claim co n sid ered o n its m erits, d u e p r o c ess

m u st req u ire to llin g o f th e statu te o f lim itatio n s. T h e S t a t e c o n ten d s th at th e P etitio n er

w aiv ed a claim o f d u e p ro cess to llin g b ecau se h e d id n o t raise it in th e trial co u rt. T h e

p etitio n alleg ed th at th e statu te o f l i mi t a tio n s sh o u ld b e to lled

. A lth o u g h it d id n o t

s p e c i f ically alleg e a d u e p ro cess b asis, it so u g h t to llin g o n th e b asis o f th e p articu lar f acts

o f th e P etitio n er’s case an d th e P ad illa d ecisio n

. T h e P etitio n er’s atto rn ey also arg u ed at th e

p o st-co n v ictio n h earin g th at th e statu te o f lim itatio n s sh o u ld b e to lled

, alth o u g h d u e p ro cess

w as n o t sp ecif

ically cited

. We co n clu d e th at th e i s s u e w as su f f icien tly raised in th e trial

co u rt. S ee S eals v

. S tate, 2 3 S .W.3 d 2 7 2

, 2 7 7 (T en n

. 2 0 0 0 ) (“‘D u e p ro cess is f lex ib le an d
calls f o r su ch p ro ced u ral p ro tectio n s as th e p articu lar situ atio n d em ands .’”) (q u o tin g P h illip s

v . S tate B d . o f

R eg en ts, 8 6 3 S .W.2 d 4 5 , 5 0 (T en n . 1 9 9 3 )).

D u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s a w e i g h i n g o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s l i b e r t y i n t e r e s t a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e ’ s i n t e r e s t i n p r e v e n t i n g t h e l i t i g a t i o n o f s t a l e a n d f r a u d u l e n t c l a i m s

. S a m p l e v

. S t a t e , 8 2

S

. W

. 3 d 2 6 7

, 2 7 3

- 7 4 ( T e n n

. 2 0 0 2 )

. T o d e t e r m i n e i f d u e p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s 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 , o u r s u p r e m e c o u r t h a s p r o v i d e d a t h r e e

- s t e p t e s t :

( 1 ) d e t e r m i n e w h e n t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d w o u l d n o r m a l l y h a v e b e g u n t o r u n ;

( 2 ) d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e g r o u n d s f o r r e l i e f a c t u a l l y a r o s e a f t e r

t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d w o u l d n o r m a l l y h a v e c o m m e n c e d ; a n d

-4-( 3 ) i f t h e g r o u n d s a r e “ l a t e r a r i s i n g , ” d e t e r m i n e i f

, u n d e r t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e , a s t r i c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d

w o u l d e f f e c t i v e l y d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n e r a r e a s o n a b l e o p p o r t u n i t y

t o p r e s e n t t h e c l a i m

.

S a n d s v

. S t a t e , 9 0 3 S

. W

. 2 d 2 9 7

, 3 0 1 ( T e n n

. 1 9 9 5 )

.

T h is co u rt h as rej ected arg u m en ts th at th e statu te o f lim itatio n s sh o u ld b e to lled o n d u e p ro cess g r o u n d s f

o r P ad illa claim s. S ee., e.g ., Iv an o S tam eg n a, slip o p

. at 8

. T h e

r a t i o n a l e is th at a P ad illa claim is n o t “later arisin g ” b ecau se it ex ists at th e tim e o f a d ef en d an t’s g u ilty p lea. Id

. L ack o f k n o w led g e o r b elated d is c o v ery o f a claim d o es n o t

m ak e it “later arisin g .” S ee, e.g ., B ro w n v

. S tate, 9 2 8 S .W.2 d 4 5 3

, 4 5 6 (T en n

. C rim

. A p p

. 1 9 9 6 ). If th e P etitio n er is en titled to d u e p ro cess to llin g , it m u st b e o n a b asis o th er th an h is

P ad illa claim

.

V iew in g th e P etitio n er’s case in lig h t o f th e S an d s f acto rs, w e n o t e t h a t t h e P etitio n er’s lan g u ag e b arrier ex isted a t t h e t im e o f th e g u ilty p lea. Wh eth er o r n o t it w as k n o w n to th e trial co u rt, it w as k n o w n to th e P etitio n er. T h e f act th at th e P etitio n er w as n o t

rep resen ted b y co u n sel also ex isted at th e tim e o f th e p lea. A lth o u g h th e P etitio n er m ay n o t
h av e k n o w n th at h is g u ilty p lea m ig h t af f ect h is im m ig ratio n statu s, h e h as n o t alleg ed th at th e relev an t im m ig ratio n law d id n o t ex ist w h en h e p lead ed g u ilty

. T h e tran scrip t o f th e p lea
h earin g ref

lects th at th e co u rt d id n o t ad v ise th e P etitio n er o f an y im m ig ratio n co n seq u en ces, b u t th is w as lik ew ise a f

a c t t h at ex isted at th e tim e o f th e p lea. H o w ev er u n f o rtu n ate th e circu m stan ces o f th e P e t i t i on er’s case w ere, th ere w ere n o later-arisin g g ro u n d s f o r relief th at

p erm itted th e trial co u rt to f in d th at th e statu te o f lim itatio n s sh o u ld b e to lled o n d u e p ro cess

g ro u n d s.

In co n sid eratio n o f th e f

o reg o in g an d th e reco rd as a w h o le, th e j u d g m en t o f th e trial

co u rt is af

f irm ed

.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ JO S E P H M

. T IP T O N

, P R E SI D IN G JU D G E

-5-