Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
Assigned on Briefs June 17, 2003 TOMMY DICKERSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE
Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County No. 11223-A J. Curtis Smith, Judge

No. M2002-1854-CCA-R3-PC Filed October 10, 2003

Appellant, Tommy Dickerson, appeals from the trial court's summary dismissal of Appellant's second petition for post-conviction relief. After a review of the record, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Trial Court Affirmed JERRY L. SMITH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER , JJ., joined. Tommy Dickerson, Nashville, Tennessee, Pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; David H. Findley, Assistant Attorney General; James Michael Taylor, District Attorney General; Steven Blount, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, the State of Tennessee. OPINION From our review of Appellant's petition filed on May 8, 2002, the documents attached thereto, and the findings of the trial court in its order dismissing the petition, we glean the following history of Appellant's case. Appellant was originally indicted for first degree murder. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, he pled guilty to second degree murder and received an agreed upon sentence of thirty years as a Range II offender, with the service of incarceration before parole controlled by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(i) (service of not less than eighty-five percent (85%) of the sentence before eligible for release). Appellant pled guilty on July 8, 1998, and there was no direct appeal of Appellant's conviction and sentence. He filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief on March 8, 1999. Counsel was appointed and an evidentiary hearing was held on August 18, 1999. In his first petition for post-conviction relief, Appellant asserted that his conviction and sentence were void because the State had breached its agreement. Appellant argued that he should

have been sentenced to a 35% rather than an 85% release eligibility status. He also alleged that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant further requested that the post-conviction court order the Tennessee Department of Correction to calculate his sentence with a 35% release eligibility. On September 21, 1999, the trial court entered an order dismissing Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief. No direct appeal was taken from this order. In his second petition for postconviction relief, which is the subject of this appeal, Appellant raised the following issues: (1) his sentence is illegal and void due to the erroneous release classification pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann.

Download dickert.pdf

Tennessee Law