The opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
MAY SESSION, 1997 December 3, 1997
Cecil W. Crowson
JAME S A. BR OW N, JR., ) Appellate Court Clerk
C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9606-CC-00232
)
Appe llant, )
)
) DICKSON COUNTY
VS. )
) HON. ROBERT E. BURCH. JUDGE
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) and LEONARD W. MARTIN, JUDGE
)
Appellee. ) (Post Conviction - Sentencing)
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JAMES A. BROWN, JR. Pro Se JOHN KNOX WALKUP
Middle Tennessee Reception Center Attorney General and Reporter
7177 Cockrill Bend-Industrial Rd.
Nashville, TN 37209-1005 CLINTON J. MORGAN
Assistant Attorney General
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, TN 37243
DAN ALSOBROOKS
District Attorney General
BOB WILSON
Assistant District Attorney
P. O. Box 580
Charlotte, TN 37036
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
OPINION
In this appe al of the summary dismissal of his post-conviction petition
Appe llant, Jam es A. B rown, Jr., ask s this C ourt to r eview the validity of h is
conviction entered upon his pleas of guilty on February 20, 1991. Appellant
pleaded guilty to nine (9 ) county o f felony theft and one (1) count of misdemeanor
theft. As part of the plea agreement Appellant received sentences totaling 32
years with eight years to be served in community corrections and the balance on
probation. Appellant apparently performed in a satisfactory manner while on
comm unity corrections and he was placed on probation sooner than expected.
Howeve r, on June 19, 1995, Appellant’s probation was revoked and he was
placed in the De partme nt of Corre ction.
Although acknowledging his post-c onvictio n petition was time-barred under
the three year statute of limitations in effect when his conviction b ecam e final,
Appellant argues that the enactment on May 10 , 1995, of the new one year
statute of limitations for post-conviction petitions creates a new one year period
in which he may file for p ost-con viction relief. Our State Supreme Court has only
recen tly resolved this issue a dversely to Appella nt’s position . Carter v. State,
Monroe Co., No. 03-S-01-9612-CR-00117 (Tenn. S. Ct. September 8, 1997, at
Knoxville). Thus the petition for post-conviction relief was properly dismissed.
In addition, following the revocation of his probation on June 10, 1995,
Appellant moved the trial cour t pursua nt to Ten n. R. Crim . P. 35 to reduce h is
sentence. Appellant offered no evidence as to why his agreed to sentence
shou ld be redu ced, he merely s tated he felt it was too harsh. The motion for
-2-
sentence reduction was denied. Under the circum stance s we se e no rea son to
disturb this discretionary decision of the trial judge.
Accordingly, the jud gme nt of the trial cou rt is affirm ed in a ll respects
pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
____________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________
PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
___________________________________
DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE
-3-