Court Opinion

ID: 1080392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-09 20:40:10.226186+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:31.707624
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

                                          AT JACKSON

MERVIN ANDERSON,                              )
                                              )
              Appellant,                      )
                                              )   SHELBY COUNTY
v.                                            )   C.C.A. NO.
                                              )   W1999-00241-CCA-R3-CD
STATE OF TENNESSEE,                           )
                                              )
              Appellee.                       )
                                                                    FILED
_____________________________________________________________________

                                   ORDER                     February 10, 2000
_____________________________________________________________________
                                                            Cecil Crowson, Jr.
                                                           Appellate Court Clerk
           This case came to be heard on the motion of the State of Tennessee for
an affirmance of the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the

Court of Criminal Appeals. The Appellant has appealed from the trial court’s dismissal

of his pro se “Motions Under the All Writs Act; Writ of Error Coram Nobis, Pursuant to
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1651, to Vacate his Conviction and Sentence.” Through his

petition, the Appellant challenged the voluntariness of guilty pleas he entered in 1985 to

grand larceny, concealing stolen property, larceny and receiving stolen property. In
particular, the Appellant contended both that the trial judge who accepted his guilty
pleas failed to advise him of his constitutional rights as well as the consequences of his

guilty pleas and that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel.

              Based on our review of the record in this case, we conclude that the
Appellant’s petition, whether treated as one for a writ of error coram nobis or one for

post-conviction relief, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations because it was

not filed until January of 1999. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 27-7-103, 40-30-202(a); see
also State v. Mixon, 983 S.W.2d 661, 668-71 (Tenn. 1999). As a result, the trial court

did not err in dismissing the petition.
              Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED pursuant to Rule
20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing the appellant is indigent,

costs shall be taxed to the state.

                                         ___________________________________
                                         JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
CONCUR:

__________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

__________________________________
JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE