Joe Billy Russell, Jr. v. State of Tennessee, M2015-02101-CCA-R3-PC

Background

Petitioner Joe Billy Russell, Jr. filed a pro se post-conviction petition (Sept. 10, 2015) challenging (1) a 2002 Davidson County conviction for evading arrest in a motor vehicle (with risk of death or injury) and (2) earlier drug/weapon-related convictions from the 1990s.
He pleaded guilty in 2003 to evading arrest (Class D felony based on risk to third parties) and received a five-year sentence (one year confinement, four years Community Corrections); Community Corrections was completed in 2006.
Petitioner argued the evading-arrest statute is void for vagueness under Johnson v. United States and that his sentences violated Blakely and related cases.
The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as time-barred and held Johnson did not invalidate Tennessee sentencing statutes; the court considered only the Davidson County judgment attached to the petition.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals found the petition was filed within one year of Johnson, but concluded petitioner failed to state a colorable claim because Tennessee’s risk-based grading targets an individual’s actual conduct and is not analogous to the invalidated federal residual clause.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Johnson renders Tennessee’s evading-arrest statute void for vagueness	Russell: Johnson’s invalidation of an ACCA residual clause means statutes punishing conduct that "creates a risk of death or injury" are unconstitutionally vague	State: Johnson does not invalidate statutes that assess risk based on the defendant’s actual conduct; petition is time-barred	Held: Statute is not void under Johnson; petitioner failed to present a colorable claim and dismissal affirmed
Whether petitioner’s claims are timely under the post-conviction savings clause tied to new constitutional rules	Russell: Petition filed within one year of Johnson so saved from the one-year limitation	State: Johnson should not apply retroactively to bar limitations or does not help petitioner’s claim	Held: Although petition was timely under Johnson (and Welch later confirmed retroactivity), petitioner still failed on the merits so dismissal proper
Whether Blakely/Peugh entitle petitioner to relief for 1990s sentences	Russell: Sentences were imposed in violation of Blakely/Peugh	State: Those decisions are not timely or otherwise inapplicable to the convictions attacked	Held: Petitioner did not file within a year of those decisions and did not present a valid basis for relief under them
Whether any cited federal decisions (e.g., Lovins) provide relief	Russell: Relied on related federal decisions for retroactivity or reprosecution issues	State: Those decisions do not apply to petitioner’s circumstances	Held: Lovins and similar decisions do not afford relief here; claims dismissed

Key Cases Cited

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (U.S. 2015) (invalidated ACCA residual clause as unconstitutionally vague)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (Sixth Amendment limits judge-imposed sentence enhancements not found by a jury)
Peugh v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2072 (U.S. 2013) (ex post facto violation where a defendant is sentenced under a scheme giving higher punishment than at time of offense)
James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (U.S. 2007) (discussed categorical approach to assessing risk under ACCA)
Nash v. United States, 229 U.S. 373 (U.S. 1913) (quoted regarding qualitative standards applied to real-world conduct)
Lovins v. Parker, 712 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2013) (addressed application of Blakely in context of when conviction became final)