Opinion ID: 1060510
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Court of Criminal Appeals

Text: In separate decisions, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgments of the trial courts in these cases. While recognizing that under this Court's decision in Watkins , due process requires tolling of the post-conviction statute of limitations during incompetency, the Court of Criminal Appeals nevertheless concluded that the trial courts appropriately dismissed each of these petitions because, taken as true, the allegations were not sufficient to make a prima facie showing that each of these petitioners had been incompetent, i.e., unable to manage his personal affairs or estate, or to comprehend his legal rights or liabilities. Thereafter, Nix filed a pro se application for permission to appeal to this Court, and a next friend application for permission to appeal was filed in this Court on behalf of Purkey by a fellow prison inmate. We granted the applications, appointed counsel, [3] and consolidated the cases to consider a single issue: what standard of mental incompetence must a petitioner satisfy before due process requires tolling of the post-conviction statute of limitations. We conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly held that due process requires tolling only if a petitioner makes a prima facie showing that he is unable either to manage his personal affairs or to understand his legal rights or liabilities. We agree with the intermediate appellate court that the allegations of these petitions are insufficient to satisfy this prima facie showing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the Court of Criminal Appeals.