David Delgado Echeveria v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01247-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- David Delgado Echeveria pleaded guilty on January 11, 2010 to possession of 300+ grams of cocaine with intent (Class A felony) and received a 25-year sentence; five other counts were nolle prossed per the judgment form.
- He later filed a habeas petition (Hickman County, June 18, 2015) asserting, among other things, that trial counsel failed to advise him of immigration consequences (Padilla v. Kentucky) and that the Spanish plea form was inaccurate.
- The Hickman court denied habeas relief but treated the petition as alleging post-conviction claims and ordered the State to respond under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act; it did not rule on timeliness and lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a post-conviction claim.
- Petitioner then filed a post-conviction petition in Wilson County (May 16, 2016) raising the Padilla-related ineffective assistance claim and asserting a right to delayed filing; the State moved to dismiss as untimely.
- The Wilson County post-conviction court dismissed the petition as filed outside the one-year statutory limitations period, noting Petitioner had previously filed and then voluntarily dismissed a 2010 post-conviction petition.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, rejecting Petitioner’s arguments about the Hickman order, delayed dismissal of remaining counts, and due-process tolling based on language barriers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-conviction petition was timely under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 | Echeveria argued his Padilla claim and other defects entitled him to file post-conviction relief after Padilla or that prior proceedings permitted late filing | State argued petition was filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations and Padilla does not revive untimely claims | Petition untimely; dismissed (limitations bar applies) |
| Whether Hickman County order established timeliness or was binding | Echeveria contended Hickman order amounted to permission to late-file and was binding | State said Hickman court never ruled on timeliness and lacked jurisdiction to decide post-conviction matters | Hickman order did not decide timeliness and was not binding; transfer was improper |
| Whether Padilla should be applied retroactively to permit relief | Echeveria sought relief based on Padilla (failure to advise re: immigration consequences) | State noted Padilla has not been given retroactive effect in Tennessee; even if retroactive, limitations would control | Padilla not retroactive for tolling purposes here; claim time-barred |
| Whether due-process tolling applies (language barrier/communication with counsel) | Echeveria argued inability to speak English and poor communication with counsel prevented timely filing, warranting tolling | State argued no factual support was presented below; petitioner had previously filed a timely petition and thus had a meaningful opportunity to be heard | Due-process tolling denied; issue waived and, on merits, no entitlement to tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (conviction counsel must advise of deportation risk; petitioner relied on this decision)
- Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560 (Tenn. 2009) (habeas court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate post-conviction claims or transfer them properly)
- Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (due process requires meaningful opportunity to present claims)
- Wilson v. State, 367 S.W.3d 229 (Tenn. 2012) (due process tolling principles for post-conviction limitations)
- Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (defining meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (due process requires reasonable opportunity to have claimed issue heard)
- Butler v. State, 789 S.W.2d 898 (Tenn. 1990) (issues not presented to post-conviction court are waived)