### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nuary26, 200 5 KEV IN M . R AD LEY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2002-C- 1417 Steve D ozier , Judge

No. M2004- 01816-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Fe bruary 15, 2005

Th e De fe nd a nt, Ke vinM. Ra dle y , a pp e a ls f ro m the su mma

ry dis mis sa l of his pe tit ionse e kin g po stconviction re lief. The trial court de term i n ed t hat the petition was time-ba rre d and dismissed the pe tit ionwi tho ut an e vid e nti ary he ari ng . We a ff

irm th e jud g me nt o f the tria l cou rt pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f the Cou rt

of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls.
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 A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f theCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
D AVI D H. W EL L ES , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the c ourt, in which J ER R Y L. S MI TH and R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J J ., joined. Kevin M. Radley , Clifton, Tennessee , Pro Se.
Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l andRe po rt e r; Mic ha e l Ma rk ha m, A ssi stant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J o h n son, District Attorney Gene ral; and Pame la Ander son, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

Acc ording t o t h e D ef

en d an t ’s p et i t i o n an d t h e r ec o rd o n ap p ea l , t h e D ef en d an twa s convicted, upon his plea of g uilty , of ag g ravated assault on September 12, 2002. Acc ording to his petiti on, he rec eived a

sentenc e of eig ht y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. Therewas no a ppeal. On May 21, 2004, the Defenda nt filed a pe tition s eeking post-conviction re lief, alleg ing that he re ceive d the ineffe ctive assistanc e of counsel and that he was mentally incompetent at the time of his guilty plea. Alluding to the f

act that his p et i t i o n would appea r to be ba rre d by the one- y ear

statute of limit ations applicable to post-conviction petitions, the Def endant alleg ed that his pe tition should be treated as timely

filed, bec ause “ due to Petiti oner’ s dimini shed mental c apac ity , Petitioner could not-2-

perf ect an appea l on this issue.” The Def endant also alleg ed “that he has substantial mental problems which would toll the Statutes of Limitations in this cause.” The trial court found that the petition wa s barr ed by the one-y ear statute of limit ations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-106(b) . The court further found t hat t he grounds for relief s tated did not fall with any

exception to the limi tation pe riod. The trial court noted that althoug h the Def endant alleg ed that mental illness ke pt him from comply ing with the statute of limitations, “the petitioner has not prese nted any

proof a s to this m atter.” The trial court thus enter ed an or der dismissing the pe tit iona s ti me -b arr e d. It is fr om the or de r o f d ism iss a l th a t th e De fe nd a nt a pp e a ls.
It is appare nt that the post-conviction petition was filed be y ond the one -y ea r s t atute of lim itatio ns . Ou r s up re me c ou rt ha s h e ld that th e app lic a tio n o f the statut e of lim itatio ns c ou ld v iol a te du e pr oc e ss if it de nie s a men ta lly inc omp e te nt pe tit ion e r a re a so na bleop po rt

un ity to s e e k r e lie f i n a meaningf

ul time and in a meaning ful manner . Seals v. State, 23 S.W . 3d 272, 279 (Tenn. 2000)

. T h e C o u rtt h u s co n cl u d ed t h atd u e p ro c e s s re q u i re s t o l l i n g o f t h e s t at u t e o f l i m i t at i o n s d u ri n g a period of me ntal incompetenc y . See id.
O u r s u p r e me c o u rt h a s s u b s e q u e n tl y e mp h a s iz e d th a t in o r d e r to r e ly o n a to ll in g of the statute of limitations based on mental i ncompetenc y , “it is incumbent upon a petitioner to include alleg ations of fa ct in the petit ion establishing either ti mely filing or tolling of the statutory period.” State v. Nix , 40 S.W .3d 459, 464 (Tenn. 2001) . “F ailure to include sufficie nt fac tual alleg ations of either c ompliance with the statute or incompetenc e re quiring tolling will result in dismi ssal.” I d.
Ou r s up re me c ou rt

fu rthe r s tate d a s f

oll ow s: We emphasize that to make a prima facie showing of incompetenc e re quiring tolling of the limitations period, a post-convic tion petition m ust incl u d e specific fa ctual alleg ations that demonstrate the petitioner’s inability to manag e his persona l affairs or understand his le g al rig hts and liabiliti es. Unsupported, conclusory , or gen eral all ega t ions of mental illness will not be sufficient to requir e tolling and preve nt s u mm ar y d is mi s s a l u n d e r

[T e n n . Co d e § 4 0

- 3 0

- 1 0 6 ( b ) & ( f ) ].
I d. The pe tition herein alleg es that the De fenda n t h as “dim inished mental ca pacity ” and “substantial mental proble ms.” These unsupported, conc lusory and g ener al alleg ati o n s of mental illness are not suff

icient to toll of the statute of limit ations or pre vent summary dismiss al of the petition as time-barr ed.
Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, J UDGE