Opinion ID: 1498881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Application to Holton v. State

Text: The petition filed by the Defender on behalf of Daryl Holton was insufficient on its face for several reasons. First, the petition was not signed by Holton, and the claims in the petition were not verified under oath by Holton. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-30-104(d) and (e). Second, the petition was filed after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. Id. § 40-30-102(a). Finally, the petition did not allege a statutory exception to the statute of limitations. Id. § 40-30-102(b). In addition, the petition filed by the Defender on behalf of Daryl Holton failed to establish a basis for allowing the Defender to proceed as next friend. The Defender's assertions regarding Holton's failure to meet with counsel and his failure to return letters fell short of demonstrating that Holton is mentally incompetent. See Nix, 40 S.W.3d at 464. In addition, the trial court did not make findings as to the Defender's standing to proceed as next friend. See Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 166, 110 S.Ct. 1717. As a result, we hold that the post-conviction trial court lacked the authority to consider the petition filed on behalf of Holton where the petition was not signed or verified by Holton and where the Defender failed to establish a next friend basis upon which to proceed. It follows that the post-conviction trial court lacked the authority to enter orders requiring Holton to meet with counsel and a court-appointed mental health expert. We therefore vacate the order and dismiss the petition.