Charles Brenden Davis v. State of Tennessee
M2016-02512-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | May 23, 2017Background
- Davis was convicted (guilty plea to one aggravated burglary; jury convictions for two thefts and employing a firearm) and sentenced to 20 years as a Range II multiple offender; this Court affirmed on direct appeal.
- Appellate counsel moved to withdraw and notified Davis (in a letter dated April 1, 2015) that he would not file a Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application and that the Rule 11 deadline was May 18, 2015; counsel’s motion to withdraw was granted April 10, 2015.
- Davis did not file a Rule 11 application; instead he filed a petition for post-conviction relief on August 17, 2016, seeking permission to file a delayed Rule 11 application and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102(a) and found no statutory exception applied under § 40-30-102(b).
- On appeal Davis argued the statute of limitations should be tolled under due process (principally attorney misconduct/retention of case file); the Court reviewed applicable due-process tolling standards and precedent and affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davis’s post-conviction petition was timely or entitled to statutory exceptions | Davis conceded untimeliness but asserted statutory tolling under Post-Conviction Procedure Act or exceptions applied | State: petition filed more than one year after final action; no §40-30-102(b) exception applies | Petition not entitled to statutory tolling; untimely and dismissed |
| Whether due process tolling applies because appellate counsel retained files / impeded Davis | Davis argued counsel’s withdrawal and retention of files prevented timely filing and thus due-process tolling is required | State: circumstances do not show attorney abandonment or extraordinary impediment; Davis could have filed pro se and amended later | Due process tolling not warranted; Davis failed to show extraordinary circumstance or diligent pursuit |
| Whether counsel’s conduct equated to the attorney-abandonment standard from Whitehead | Davis relied on Whitehead (misleading deadline and retention of files) | State distinguished facts from Whitehead; no miscalculation or active misrepresentation here | Court distinguished Whitehead and found facts insufficient to show abandonment or combined extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether dismissal without further amendment opportunity was improper for pro se petitioner | Davis implied inability to comply pro se because of missing files | State: petitioner could have filed timely and amended; court pointed to rule allowing amendment assistance | Court held petitioner had opportunity to file pro se and amend; dismissal proper as time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bush v. State, 428 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014) (standard for review of statute-of-limitations tolling is mixed question of law and fact)
- Jaco v. State, 120 S.W.3d 828 (Tenn. 2003) (burden to prove post-conviction factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence)
- Kendrick v. State, 454 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2015) (appellate review scope for post-conviction factual findings and legal conclusions)
- Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450 (Tenn. 2001) (deference to post-conviction court on credibility and factual resolutions)
- Henley v. State, 960 S.W.2d 572 (Tenn. 1997) (post-conviction evidentiary/credibility principles)
- Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (due-process tolling where circumstances outside petitioner’s control prevent timely filing)
- Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (attorney misrepresentation can justify tolling)
- Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (due-process tolling when grounds for relief arise after final appellate action)
- Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (similar principles on tolling when claims arise after final action)
- Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (tolled limitations where counsel misled about deadline and retained files; attorney abandonment analysis)
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling standard requiring diligence and extraordinary circumstances)
- Downs v. McNeil, 520 F.3d 1311 (11th Cir. 2008) (context for assessing diligence given confinement realities)