1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

ROB ERT KIMBR EL v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE
Direc t Appeal from the Cr iminal Cou rt f or Shelby Coun ty No. 87-04089; 88- 04450 James C. Be asley, Jr., Judge

No. W2007-00739-C CA-M R3-CO - F iled May 20, 2008

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Rob e rt

Ki mbr e l, a

pp e a ls the tr ia l c ourt ' s d e nia l of his pe tit ion fo r co ra

m no bis relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court aff irm the trial court' s denial of re lief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls. W e conclude that the State' s motion is m e ri tor iou s. Ac c or din g ly , w e g ra nt the State ' s motio n an d af fi rm the jud g me nt o f t

he low e r c ourt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of th e Tr ial Co ur t A ff

ir me d Pur sua nt

to Rul e 20 , Rule s of t he Co ur t o f C r im ina l A ppe als
J. C. M C L IN , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VERET T W I L L I AMS and A LA N E. G LE NN , JJ., joined. Robert Kimbrel, pro se

. Rober t E

. Co o p e r , J r
. , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l & Re p o r te r ; M ic h a e l M o o r e , So li c it o r G e n e r a l; Preston Shipp, Assis tant Attorney Ge nera l , for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

A Sh e lby County Gr and Jury re tur ne d a n in dic tme nt i n July

19 89 c ha rg ingthe Pe tit ion e r w ith three counts of extortion, one count of statutory rape , and one count of

robber y . On J anuar

y 2, 1990, the Petitioner enter ed guilty pleas to two counts of extorti on, one count of robber y , and one c ount of statutory rape . The Petitioner re ceive d a two-year sentenc e for

eac h extorti on conviction, a fivey ear sentenc e for

the robber

y conviction, and a one- y ear sentenc e for

the statutory

rape conviction, with all of the sentenc es to be ser ved conc urre ntly

to eac h other a

nd to a one- y ear

sentenc e the Petitioner rec eived f

or an e scape conviction in May 1989, in case number 8804450.2

On J uly 24, 2006, the Petitioner filed a “ motion of writ of error coram nobis.” I n the motion, the Petitioner alleg ed that his se ntence s wer e illega l. Specifica lly , the Petitioner argued that he w as servinga sente nce f

or sexu al b at t er y

when he esca

ped. While on esca

pe status, the Petitioner obtained four

more fe lony

char g es. The Petitioner a sserted that Rule 32, Tennessee Ru l es of Criminal Procedure , mandated consec utive and not concur rent sentences. On August 14, 2006, the low e r c ourt

de nie d th e mot ion , c on c lud ingthat, a lth ou g h th e P eti ti on er wa s se nte nc e d in 19 89 to concur rent sentenc es, the sentenc es wer e corr ecte d by the Depa rtment of Correc tion a t t h at t i me. The lowe r cour

t further deter mined that the statute of limitations for a writ of err or cor am nobis had expired. On September 15, 2006, a notice of appea l document was f

iled reg ardingthe denial of the
cora m nobis petiti on. The notice of appe al was dated August 19, 2006. At some time, the Petitioner fi le d a pe tit ion fo r h a be a s corp us rel ie f. Th e pe tit ion is n ot c on ta ine d in

the ple a din g s b e fo re thi s court. The trial court de nied habe as cor pus relief on October

26, 2006. On J anuar

y 2, 2007, the lower court denied the Petitioner’s motion for rec onsideration of writ of err or cora m nobis. The mot ion to r e c on sid e r is no t c on ta ine d in the ple a din g s be fo re thi s Court , no r is the date on wh ic h it was filed me ntioned. On J anuar y 23, 2007, the Shelby

County Clerk’s Of

fice rec eived a

nother notice of a

ppeal r eg ardingthe denial of cora m nobis relief

. On Fe bruar

y 6, 2007, the lower

court enter ed an or der g rantingthe Petitioner permissi o n t o s ee ka dela y ed appe al in both the habea s corpus c ase a

nd the cor am nobis case

. B y or de r e nte re d Apr il 2 5, 20 07 , th is C ourt re vie we d th e ple a din g s and e nte re d a n o rd e r i n the a bove- c a pti on e d matte r a dd

re ssi ngthe low e r c ourt ’s or de r gra nti ngthe de lay e d a

pp e a l. T his Court determined that a notice of appea l document was not timely filed, i f i ndeed ever filed, in the habea s corpus c ase. Howeve r, this Court noted that the notice of appea l in the c oram nobis ca se wa s timely filed. Acc ording ly , this Court deter mined that the appeal s hould only encompa ss the denial of cor am nobis relief

. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affir m the lower court' s denial of re lief pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appe als. As basis for its motion, the Sta te a sse rt s t h a tt h e p e t i t i o ni s t i m e - b ar r e d an d f a i l s t o r a i s e a

c o g n i z a b l e c l a i mf

o r c o r am no bis relief . Finally , the State contends that the petition may not be treated as a

petition for habe as cor

pus relief beca use (1) the Petitioner has fa iled to satisfy the proc edura l require ment s fo r a p eti tion for habea s corpus re lief, see T.C.A. § 29-21-107; and ( 2) this Court has previously acknow ledg ed that the Petitioner m ad e n o at tempt to appeal the de nial of his petition for habe as cor pus relief . The Petitioner has filed a

response in oppositi on to the State' s motion. Relief by petition for writ of err or cora m nobis is pr ovided for in T ennesse e Code Annotated

se c tio n 4 0- 26 -1 05 . T hat st a tut e pr ov ide s, in p e rt ine nt p art : The re lief obtainable by

this procee ding sha ll be confined t o err ors dehor s the rec ord and to matters that we re not or c ould not have bee n litigated on the trial of the c ase, on a motion for a ne w trial, on appe al in the nature of a writ of er ror, on wr it of err or, o r i n a habe as cor

pus proce eding . Upon a showingby the def endant that the defe ndant was without fault i n failing to present c erta in evidence at the prope r time,3

a wr it of err or cor am nobis will li e for subsequently or new ly discovere d evidenc e relating to matter s which we re litigated at the trial if the judg e dete rmines that such
e vid e nc e may

have re su lte d in

a dif fe re nt jud g me nt, ha d it be e n p re se nte d at th e tr ia l. The issue shall be t ri ed b y the cour t without the intervention of a jury , and if the decision be in fa

vor of the petitioner, the j udg ment complained of shall be set aside and the de fenda

nt shall be g rante d a new

trial in that cause

. T.C.A. § 40-26-105. The writ of err or cora m nobis is an “extraordinary proce dural re medy ,” filling only a “slig ht ga

p into which fewcase s fall.” State v. Mix on, 983 S.W .2d 661, 672 (Tenn.1999) . The “purpose of this remedy

‘is to bring to the attent i o n o f the cour t some fac t unknown to the court which if known would have resulted in a dif fer ent judg ment.’” Sta te v . H ar t, 911 S.W .2d 371, 374 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 9 5 ) ( qu o t i n g State ex re l. Carls on v. State, 219 Tenn. 80, 407 S.W .2d 165, 167 (1 96 6) ). A p e tit ion

fo r wri t of

e rr or c or am no bis re lie f m

us t be fi led withi n o ne y e ar o f t he tim e judgme nt becomes f

inal in the trial court. SeeT.C.A. § 27-7-103.
The Petitioner asse rts that his sentence s wer e void beca use t hey wer e ordered to be serve d

concur rent to one a

nother, he was sente nced outside his applicable rang e, his due proc ess rig hts were violated, and his guilty pleas wer e not knowing ly and intellige ntly

enter ed. None of these c laims are cog nizable in a cora

m nobis proce eding . Moreove r, it is clear that the Petitioner' s petition was filed
many y e ars a ft e r t

he statut e of

lim itatio ns ha d r

un . A lth ou g h d

ue pr oc e ss may re qu ir e tha t th e statut e of l imitations for f

iling a pe tition for writ of er ror c oram nobis be tolled, see W orkman v . State, 41 S.W. 3d 10 0, 10 3 (T e nn
. 20 01 ), no thi ng in the re c or d imp lic a te s any du e pr oc e ss c on c e rn s th a t w ou ld
re qu ir e that th e statut e of

lim itatio ns be tol le d. We co nc lud e , the re fo re , that th e tr ia l c ourt pr op e rl y denied the r elief soug ht by the Petitioner. Althoug hth e g r o u n d s r a is e d b y th e Pe ti ti o n e r

ar e o n e s c o g n iz a

b le in a p o s t- c o n v ic tion petition, the pe titioner treate d as a pe tition for post-conviction relief is tim e-ba

rre d. The Petitioner fi le d h is p e tit ion

be y on d th a t ti me allo we d b y the statut e , a

nd no ne of the e xce pti on s to thi s ti me limit apply

in this case. SeeT. C.A . § 40 -3 0- 10 2(b). Un de r t he Pos t- Convic tio n Pr oc e dure Ac t, exceptions to the statute of limit ations are set forth. The se exceptions include: (1) claims based upon
a ne w r ule of c on sti tut ion a l la

w a pp lic a ble to a p e tit ion e r' s c a se ; ( 2) c la ims ba se d u po n n e w s c ie nti fi c evidenc e showinginnocenc e; and ( 3) cla ims based upon sentenc es t hat wer e enha nced be cause of a pre vious conviction and the pre vious conviction was subseque ntly found to be illeg al. SeeT.C.A. § 40-30-102( b)(1) -(3) . The Petitioner has f ailed to asser

t any of these e x ceptions for

tolling the statut e . H e c ite s n o n e w c on sti tut ion a l r ule , r e fe rs to n o n e w s c ie nti fi c e vid e nc e , a nd make s n o c la im that an ea rlier c onviction has bee n overturne d. See T. C.A . § 40 -3 0- 10 6( g ). Thus , no g ro un ds e xist
a s an e xce pti on

to t he statut e of lim itatio ns
. We c on c lud e that the tr ia l c ourt did no t e rr by summa ri ly dismiss ing the petition.
Simi larly , the petition may not be treated as one for habea s corpus relief

. Th e P et itioner failed to satisfy

many o f t h e formal r equire ments for a petition for the wr it of habea s corpus. See T. C.A . § 29 -2 1- 10 8. Th e fa il ure to c omp ly wi th t he statut or

y re qu ir e me nts is s uf

fi c ie nt a lon e to4

dismiss a petition for ha

beas corpus relief

. Moreove r, the Petitioner cle arly made no indication that he intended to a

ppeal the de nial of his petition for habe as cor pus relief

. When an opinion would have no pr ece dential value, the Court of Criminal A p p ea l s may a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o r a c tio n o f t he tr ia l c ourt

by me mor and

um o pin ion

wh e n th e ju dg me nt i s re nd e red or th e a c tio n ta

ke n in a pr oc e e din g wi tho ut a

jur y and su c h ju dg me nt o r a c tio n is no t a deter mination of g uilt, and the evidenc e does not pre ponderate ag ainst the finding of the trial judg e. SeeTenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 20. W e conc lude that t h i s ca s e s at isfies the cr iteria of Rule 20 . Ac c or din g ly , it

is o rd e re d th a t th e State ' s mo tion is g ra nte d. Th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is
a ff ir me d in a c c or da nc e wi th Rul e 20 , Ru le s o f t he Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls.

___________________________________



### J.C . M CLIN , JU DGE