Carl Bond v. State of Tennessee
W2016-00691-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Carl Bond was convicted of aggravated robbery and sentenced to 17 years at 100%.
- This Court affirmed his conviction on direct appeal on February 27, 2013; the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on August 14, 2013.
- Bond filed a pro se post-conviction petition on July 22, 2015 (over one year after final appellate action); counsel later filed an amended petition and an evidentiary hearing was held.
- The trial court did not raise timeliness, treated the petition as timely, and denied relief on the merits; Bond appealed.
- On appeal, the Court sua sponte addressed the statute of limitations and concluded Bond’s petition was untimely under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a), so the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits.
- Bond’s unsubstantiated claim that he previously filed a petition (January 2014) did not carry his burden to toll the limitations period on due-process grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bond’s post-conviction petition was timely under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a) | Bond filed July 22, 2015 and contends merits review should proceed; alleged earlier filing in Jan 2014 (unproven) | State argued (on the merits) ineffective assistance; did not assert timeliness at trial but opposes relief | Petition untimely; filed after one-year limit (deadline Aug 14, 2014); appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether any statutory exceptions to the one-year limit apply | Bond did not allege a newly recognized constitutional right, new scientific evidence of innocence, or invalid prior conviction | No exceptions apply | None of the § 40-30-102(b) exceptions apply |
| Whether due-process tolling applies to excuse untimeliness | Bond suggested earlier filing and delay by clerk; argued equitable considerations implicitly | State did not press tolling; court reviews record for tolling proof | Due-process tolling not warranted; Bond failed to meet burden to show denial of reasonable opportunity to file |
| Whether ineffective-assistance claim (failure to make an offer of proof) can be reviewed despite timeliness defect | Bond argued trial counsel was ineffective for not offering proof regarding his testimony at a conviction-admissibility hearing | State defended effectiveness of counsel | Court declined to reach the merits because it lacked jurisdiction due to untimeliness |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (limited due-process tolling of post-conviction statute of limitations)
- Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (discussing due-process considerations for tolling)
- Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (standard for when statute of limitations may be tolled to allow meaningful opportunity to assert claims)