Court Opinion

ID: 9529923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:55:31.051171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:57.375623
License: Public Domain

CHAPEL, Vice’ Presiding Judge,
specially concurring.
I agree that Mayes’s application for post-conviction relief should be denied. I must briefly respond to dicta in footnote 3 which suggests that the post-conviction statutes current at the time Mayes filed his application allow for the preservation of issues technically waived,’ and then states that this statutory approach allows this Court to “walk too far into this hall of mirrors.” This Court’s jurisprudence has in no way expanded or extended petitioners’ ability to bring claims on capital post-conviction review. As the footnote acknowledges, any generosity in reviewing claims is found in the statute itself, which this Court is bound to apply. Just as the previous statute allowed some issues otherwise waived to be preserved for review, the current statute also specifically preserves certain ineffective assistance of counsel claims for post-conviction review. This Court has not expanded the issues available on post-conviction, but we cannot narrow those issues beyond the Legislature’s mandates.