Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs September 18, 2012 at Knoxville DONALD KEITH SOLOMON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Bedford County No. 17,404-PCR F. Lee Russell, Judge

No. M2012-01161-CCA-R3-PC - Filed December 19, 2012

The Petitioner, Donald Keith Solomon, appeals as of right from the Bedford County Circuit Court's denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The Petitioner contends that the postconviction court erred by summarily dismissing his petition for being untimely filed. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed D. K ELLY T HOMAS, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J OHN E VERETT W ILLIAMS and R OBERT W. W EDEMEYER, JJ., joined. James R. Tucker, Jr., Shelbyville, Tennessee (on appeal), for the appellant, Donald Keith Solomon. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Counsel; Robert Carter, District Attorney General; and Richard A. Cawley, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Based upon the scant record before this court, the Petitioner pled guilty in 2009 to an unspecified offense for which he remains incarcerated. On March 26, 2012, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Bedford County Circuit Court requesting that an attorney be appointed to assist him "in preparing and filing" a petition for post-conviction relief. In the letter, the Petitioner complained that his trial counsel was ineffective and "neglected to advise [him] of certain aspects of [his] defense[] that would have led [him to] not accept" the plea agreement. The Petitioner also complained that trial counsel did not have time "to prepare or investigate a proper defense" and that trial counsel failed to meet with him prior to his acceptance of the plea agreement. The Petitioner further complained that the State's "key

evidence against" him, a videotape of his interview with the police, "violated [his] constitutional and civil rights" because his repeated requests for an attorney during the interview were ignored. On April 16, 2012, the post-conviction court entered an order treating the Petitioner's letter as a petition for post-conviction relief and summarily dismissing the petition because it was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations. The Petitioner responded to the postconviction court's order with a second letter complaining that he was "a lay person," that he was unaware that his "rights were violated" until March 2012, that "such time limitations should start at the time [he] knew [he] was wronged," and that there was no statute of limitations "on a manifest of justice." The Petitioner also complained that he was not present when the post-conviction court heard this matter and that he was not allowed to prepare and present evidence to support his claims. The Petitioner requested that counsel be appointed to represent him to appeal the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of his petition. The post-conviction court appointed counsel and a timely notice of appeal was filed. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that the post-conviction court erred in summarily dismissing his petition. The Petitioner argues that the post-conviction court erred by dismissing his petition without appointing counsel to investigate and raise any possible arguments for tolling the statute of limitations. The Petitioner also argues, generally, that due process justified tolling the statute of limitations in this matter. However, the Petitioner provides no factual support for this argument. The State responds that the Post-Conviction Procedure Act requires a post-conviction court to summarily dismiss a petition when it is untimely filed and states no proper reason for tolling the statute of limitations. The State further responds that there is no authority requiring a post-conviction court to appoint counsel prior to summary dismissal for the purpose of investigating an untimely petition. Post-conviction relief is available when a "conviction or sentence is void or voidable because of the abridgment of any right guaranteed by the Constitution of Tennessee or the Constitution of the United States." Tenn. Code Ann.

Download solomondonaldopn.pdf

Tennessee Law