Dean Heath v. State of Tennessee
W2016-00786-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Sep 5, 2017Background
- Dean Heath was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder (merged), and especially aggravated robbery; he received life plus a concurrent 25-year sentence.
- Direct appeals were exhausted when the Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on October 17, 2013. The one-year statutory window to file a post-conviction petition therefore expired October 17, 2014.
- Heath filed a pro se post-conviction petition on January 21, 2016, conceding untimeliness but alleging mental incompetence during the limitations period that should toll the statute.
- Appointed post-conviction counsel requested evidentiary support for incompetence but received none; the trial court summarily dismissed the petition as untimely and lacking factual support for tolling.
- Heath filed a post-dismissal pro se Motion to Vacate and multiple notices of appeal; the trial court denied the Motion to Vacate as untimely and without new supporting evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeals consolidated the appeals and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Heath's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due-process tolling of the one-year post-conviction statute is required for mental incompetence | Heath: He was mentally incompetent during the limitations period and therefore due process requires tolling | State: Bare assertions of incompetence without affidavits, medical records, or other credible evidence are insufficient to toll the statute | Court: Affirmed dismissal; petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing or present clear-and-convincing evidence of incompetence, so no tolling allowed |
| Whether the post-dismissal Motion to Vacate should be treated as a timely-filed post-conviction petition | Heath: The Motion to Vacate should be treated as a properly filed post-conviction petition | State: Motion was filed after notice of appeal (trial court lost jurisdiction) and added no new credible evidence to justify tolling | Court: Denied; motion was filed after jurisdiction had passed and, even if treated as a petition, it was untimely and lacked competent evidence to toll the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (recognizes due-process tolling where required to afford meaningful opportunity for post-conviction relief)
- Reid ex rel. Martiniano v. State, 396 S.W.3d 478 (Tenn. 2013) (adopts competency standards in Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 11 for post-conviction competency and tolling)
- Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (holds statute must be tolled for mentally incompetent petitioners to ensure meaningful access)
- State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459 (Tenn. 2001) (due-process tolling applies only when petitioner cannot manage affairs or understand rights; mere assertions insufficient)
- Holton v. State, 201 S.W.3d 626 (Tenn. 2006) (prima facie showing of incompetence requires more than conclusions)
- State v. Sexton, 368 S.W.3d 371 (Tenn. 2012) (explains clear-and-convincing standard for competency findings)
- Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (clarifies clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (due-process principle that prisoners must have meaningful opportunity to seek post-conviction relief)