Billy Joe Russell, Jr., AKA Joe Billy Russell, Jr., AKA Craig C. Scott v. State of Tennessee, M2015-02318-CCA-R3-PC

Petitioner Billy Joe Russell, Jr. pled guilty in 2001 to theft (Class D) and evading arrest in a motor vehicle (Class E); concurrent two-year sentences were imposed.
In September 2015 the petitioner filed a pro se post-conviction petition challenging three convictions; this appeal concerns the 2001 Class E evading-arrest conviction (Case No. 2001-I-316).
He argued the evading statute is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States and that his sentences violated Blakely and Peugh.
The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as time-barred under Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-102 because it was filed more than one year after the judgments became final.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding (1) the petition was untimely and (2) Johnson did not render the Class E evading-arrest provision void for vagueness because the Class E offense does not involve the "risk of death or injury" element at issue in Johnson.
The court applied Rule 20 for a memorandum affirmance because the appeal presented no colorable claim for relief and would add no precedential value.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evading-arrest statute is unconstitutionally vague under Johnson	Russell: Johnson renders statutes that assess risk ("risk of death or injury") void for vagueness; Tennessee's evading statute is similarly vague	State: The challenged conviction is a Class E offense that does not involve the "risk of death or injury" element addressed in Johnson; petition is untimely	Court: Petition time-barred; no colorable Johnson-based vagueness claim for the Class E conviction; dismissal affirmed
Whether Blakely/Peugh invalidate petitioner's sentences	Russell: Sentences for evading and drug convictions violated Sixth Amendment principles announced in Blakely and Peugh	State: Claims are untimely and do not present a colorable collateral attack	Court: Claims were not timely and did not warrant relief; dismissal affirmed
Whether the petition was timely under Tennessee post-conviction statutes	Russell: Petition should be timely because it falls within one year of federal opinions creating retroactive rights	State: Post-conviction statute of limitations bars relief; judgment became final more than one year before filing	Court: Petition was filed after statutory limitation; court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief; dismissal affirmed

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) (addressing vagueness of the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (holding Sixth Amendment requires jury factfinding for facts increasing sentence beyond statutory maximum)
Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (2013) (addressing ex post facto concerns for sentencing guidelines and increased punishment)