Opinion ID: 1498881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Holton v. State

Text: Daryl Holton was convicted of four counts of premeditated first degree murder for killing his four children in 1997. The jury imposed a death sentence for each offense. This Court affirmed the convictions and the death sentences on January 5, 2004, see State v. Holton, 126 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn.2004), and denied rehearing on February 17, 2004. On April 29, 2005, the Post-Conviction Defender (Defender) filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging Holton's convictions and death sentences in the Circuit Court of Bedford County, Tennessee. The petition conceded that Holton had not filed a post-conviction petition and had not signed or verified the petition filed by the Defender. The petition alleged, however, that the Defender must contact every death-sentenced individual in Tennessee to ensure that the individual's right to post-conviction review occurs in a timely and thorough manner. Although the petition was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations, the Defender alleged several concerns about Holton's mental competency. The petition stated that Holton had refused to meet with the Defender, had not responded to counsel's letters, had a history of major depression, and was quite possibly operating under suicidal motivations. The Defender requested a hearing to determine whether Holton was mentally competent to forgo post-conviction proceedings and whether mental incompetency may have tolled the one-year statute of limitations. On May 15, 2005, the post-conviction trial court entered an order staying Holton's execution. After determining that the Defender had a statutory duty to represent Holton, the court entered an order requiring Holton to meet with the Defender and Dr. William Kenner, a court-authorized mental health expert. On July 18, 2005, the post-conviction trial court granted an extension of time for the filing of a completed [post-conviction] petition. On August 8, 2005, the State filed an application for an extraordinary appeal pursuant to Rule 10 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. The State argued that the post-conviction trial court lacked the authority to consider the petition because it had not been signed or verified under oath by Holton. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-104(d) (2003). The State also argued that the petition had been filed after the one-year statute of limitations had expired. See id. § 40-30-102(a) (2003). The Defender argued that these issues were waived because they had not been raised and preserved by the District Attorney General. The Court of Criminal Appeals denied an extraordinary appeal after finding that the post-conviction trial court had not so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to require immediate review. See Tenn. R.App. P. 10. We then granted the State's application for extraordinary review.