Opinion
C.C.A. No. 01C01-9607-CR-00305.
January 27, 1998.
DAVIDSON COUNTY, HON. THOMAS H. SHRIVER, JUDGE, (Post Conviction-Relief).
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20.
FOR THE APPELLANT: DAVID I. KOMISAR.
FOR THE APPELLEE: JOHN KNOX WALKUP, Attorney General and Reporter, LISA A. NAYLOR, Assistant Attorney General, VICTOR S. JOHNSON, District Attorney General, PAM ANDERSON, Assistant District Attorney.
ORDER
A Davidson County Criminal Court jury found Appellant Monroe Brown guilty of one count of second degree murder. As a Range II persistent offender, he received a life sentence in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. In this appeal, Appellant presents the following issue for review: whether the trial court erred in dismissing Appellant's petition for post-conviction relief.
After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
On March 31, 1987, this Court affirmed Appellant's conviction. State v. Monroe Brown, No. 86-221-III, Davidson County (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, March 31, 1987), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1987). On July 3, 1991, Appellant filed his first petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court dismissed this petition, concluding that the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We affirmed the trial court's decision. Monroe Brown v. State, C.C.A. No. 01C01-9112-CR-00367, Davidson County (Tenn.Crim.App., Nashville, August 6, 1992),perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. 1992). Appellant filed two amended petitions for post-conviction relief on November 17, 1995. On February 9, 1996, the trial court denied both petitions.
Tennessee law is well-settled in this area. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (1990, Repl.), the statute of limitations for the filing of a petition for post-conviction relief began to run on June 8, 1987 and ended three years later on June 8, 1990. Appellant's contention concerning the reasonable doubt jury instruction allegedly given in his case does not fall within any rule of law which would toll the running of the statute of limitations. Moreover, a jury instruction similar to the one about which Appellant complains was approved by this Court inPettyjohn v. State, 885 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1994).
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20.
____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE
___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE