IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs at Knoxville June 23, 2015

RALPH T. O’NEAL, III v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 98-D-2536 J. Randall Wyatt, Jr., Judge

No. M2015-00319-CCA-R3-PC – Filed July 13, 2015

_____________________________

Petitioner, Ralph T. O’Neal III, appeals the trial court’s order summarily dismissing his 

pro se petition for post-conviction, habeas corpus, and error coram nobis relief. We find 

that this case meets the criteria for affirmance pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the 

Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed 

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E. GLENN and 

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JJ., joined.

Ralph T. O’Neal III, Terre Haute, Indiana, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Leslie E. Price, Senior Counsel; 

Glen Funk, District Attorney General, for the respondent, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Facts and Procedural Background

Over 21 years ago, Petitioner pled guilty in Case Number SC149891 to possession 

of a controlled substance in Davidson County.

1

 Over 16 and a half years ago, Petitioner 

pled guilty in Case Number 98-D-2536 to being a felon in possession of a firearm in 

Davidson County. He was sentenced to one year in the workhouse suspended to one year 

 

1

Petitioner’s sentence in this case is not apparent from the record. 
- 2 -

on probation concurrent with Case Number SN16352. Nearly nine years ago, Petitioner 

pled guilty in Case Number GS279435 to theft of property valued at $500 or less. He 

was sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days suspended to probation.

On September 15, 2014, Petitioner filed a pro se petition seeking relief pursuant to 

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f), post-conviction, habeas corpus, and error 

coram nobis. In the petition, he alleged that his guilty pleas were unknowing and 

involuntary because he was not advised that his convictions could be used to enhance any 

subsequent state or federal sentence. 

The trial court treated the petition as a petition for post-conviction relief and 

summarily dismissed it as untimely on January 23, 2015.

It is from this order that Petitioner appeals.

Analysis

Petitioner argues on appeal that the trial court improperly dismissed his petition 

for relief. Specifically, he alleges the trial court performed a “screening peek” and 

summarily dismissed the petition without completing a “thorough analysis under all 

statutes raised” or asking the State to respond. The State disagrees.

Post-Conviction Relief

At the outset, we note that a trial court has the discretion to treat a pleading

according to the relief sought. Norton v. Everhart, 895 S.W.2d 317, 319 (Tenn. 1995). 

The trial court herein treated the petition as a petition for post-conviction relief. A 

petition for post-conviction relief must be filed within one year of the date of the final 

action of the highest State appellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is 

taken, within one year of the date on which the judgment becomes final. T.C.A. § 40-30-

102(a). Our legislature emphasized the fact that “[t]ime is of the essence of the right to 

file a petition for post-conviction relief,” id., and provided only three narrow exceptions 

to the statute of limitations: (1) a new constitutional right with retrospective application; 

(2) new scientific evidence establishing actual innocence; and (3) the invalidation of 

convictions underlying an enhanced sentence. T.C.A. § 40-30-102(b). Additionally, our

supreme court has held that due process may toll the statute of limitations under very 

narrow circumstances. See Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (attorney 

misconduct or abandonment); Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (petitioner’s 

mental incompetence); Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995) (later-arising 

grounds for relief). Petitioner pled guilty on May 24, 1994; January 21, 1999; and 

December 22, 2006. He filed the petition for relief on September 15, 2014, clearly 

outside the one-year statute of limitations in all three cases. He has not alleged any fact 
- 3 -

which would toll the statute of limitations on either statutory or due process grounds. 

The trial court correctly dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief on the basis that 

it was untimely.

Moreover, even if the trial court had not treated the petition as a petition for postconviction relief, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought on any other ground 

alleged. 

Habeas Corpus Relief

Petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas corpus relief because he is suffering a 

collateral consequence of the guilty pleas in that his subsequent federal sentence was 

enhanced. “While there is no statute of limitations to bar the filing of a habeas corpus 

petition, the grounds upon which relief will be granted are limited in nature and scope.” 

Wyatt v. State, 24 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tenn. 2000). Habeas corpus relief “is available only 

when it appears from the face of the judgment or the record of the proceedings that a trial 

court was without jurisdiction to sentence a defendant or that a defendant’s sentence of 

imprisonment or other restraint has expired.” Id. In other words, habeas corpus relief is 

only available when the judgment is void, not merely voidable. Taylor v. State, 995 

S.W.2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999). Tennessee law is clear that when a petitioner complains of 

a restraint on liberty that is a collateral consequence of a judgment, habeas corpus is not 

an appropriate avenue for seeking relief. Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16, 23 (Tenn. 

2004); Derron Guy v. State, No. M2013-01851-CCA-R3-HC, 2014 WL 2462847, at *2 

(Tenn. Crim. App. May 29, 2014), no perm. app. filed. Petitioner’s guilty pleas were

entered on May 24, 1994; January 21, 1999; and December 22, 2006. Petitioner failed to 

attach a judgment for the 1994 conviction and his one-year sentence from 1999 and 

eleven month and twenty-nine day sentence from 2006 have long since expired. 

Petitioner has failed to show that he was restrained by a void judgment. 

Writ of Error Coram Nobis

Lastly, Petitioner insists he is entitled to relief through a writ of error coram nobis 

because the courts who accepted the underlying guilty pleas “violated” statutes by 

approving unknowing and involuntary guilty pleas. Tennessee Code Annotated section 

40-26-105 provides, in pertinent part:

Upon a showing by the defendant that the defendant was without fault in 

failing to present certain evidence at the proper time, a writ of error coram 

nobis will lie for subsequently or newly discovered evidence relating to 

matters which were litigated at the trial if the judge determines that such 

evidence may have resulted in a different judgment, had it been presented at 

the trial.
- 4 -

T.C.A. § 40-26-105(b). A petition for writ of error coram nobis must include: 

(1) the grounds and the nature of the newly discovered evidence; (2) why 

the admissibility of the newly discovered evidence may have resulted in a 

different judgment had the evidence been admitted at the previous trial; (3) 

[that] the petitioner was without fault in failing to present the newly 

discovered evidence at the appropriate time; and (4) the relief sought by the 

petitioner.

Freshwater v. State, 160 S.W.3d 548, 553 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004). A petition for coram 

nobis relief must be filed within one year after the judgment becomes final. T.C.A. § 27-

7-103. For the purposes of coram nobis relief, a judgment becomes final thirty days after 

the entry of the judgment in the trial court if no post-trial motion is filed, or upon entry of 

an order disposing of a timely filed post-trial motion. State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661,

670 (Tenn. 1999). Petitioner filed his petition for relief more than twenty years after the 

oldest challenged conviction and almost eight years after the most recent challenged 

conviction. His petition is untimely. Petitioner has shown no due process considerations 

that would require tolling the statute of limitations. See Harris v. State, 301 S.W.3d 141,

145 (Tenn. 2010) (citing Workman v. State, 41 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tenn. 2001)). 

Furthermore, the grounds alleged by Petitioner are not cognizable for error coram nobis 

relief as they are in no way related to newly discovered evidence. Petitioner is not 

entitled to relief.2 

Conclusion

We determine, sua sponte, that this case meets the criteria of Rule 20 of the Rules 

of the Court of Criminal Appeals, which provides inter alia:

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the 

case, when an opinion would have no precedential value, may affirm the 

judgment or action of the trial court by memorandum opinion rather than by 

formal opinion, when:

The judgment is rendered or the action is taken in a proceeding 

before the trial judge without a jury, and such judgment or action is not a 

determination of guilt, and the evidence does not preponderate against the 

finding of the trial judge . . . and

 

2

Petitioner abandons his claim with respect to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(f) on 

appeal. See Ronnie Jackson, Jr. v. State, No. W2008-02280-CCA-R3-PC, 2009 WL 3430151, at *6 n.2 

(Tenn. Crim. App. 2009), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 16, 2010).
- 5 -

No error of law requiring a reversal of the judgment or action is 

apparent on the record.

See Larry L. Preston v. State, No. E2007-02458-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL 2448318, at *2 

(Tenn. Crim. App. June 18, 2008) (“[W]e point out that this Court’s use of Rule 20 to 

summarily affirm a lower court’s action is not limited to cases in which the State moves 

for such relief.”), no perm. app. filed. Because the issues now raised by Petitioner do not 

entitle him to relief, we find no error in the decision of the Criminal Court for Davidson 

County to dismiss the petition for post-conviction, habeas corpus, and error coram nobis

relief without a hearing and without the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the 

judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed in accordance with Rule 20.

_________________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE