Monterious Bell v. State of Tennessee, W2016-01709-CCA-R3-PC

Background

Monterious Bell was convicted of aggravated burglary after evidence including victim identification, accomplice testimony, and footwear tread comparisons; he was sentenced to 15 years as a career offender.
This Court affirmed Bell’s conviction on direct appeal on February 5, 2015; Bell failed to timely file for permission to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Bell later filed a pro se application for permission to appeal and a motion for appointment of counsel; the Supreme Court ordered counsel to show cause and ultimately denied Bell’s application on March 23, 2016, on the merits (waiving timeliness), but did not issue a mandate.
Bell filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief (stamped June 31, 2016; delivered to prison officials June 27, 2016), alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that counsel’s abandonment tolled the post-conviction limitations period.
The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition as time-barred; Bell appealed, arguing the petition was timely or tolled due to counsel’s conduct and other impediments.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding the Supreme Court’s March 23, 2016 order denying Bell’s Rule 11 application constituted the final action of the highest state appellate court, so Bell had one year (until March 23, 2017) to file post-conviction relief, making his June 2016 filing timely; the case was remanded for merits proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bell)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Was Bell’s post-conviction petition timely filed?	Petition timely because Supreme Court’s March 23, 2016 denial was final and started the one-year clock; filing was within one year.	Petition untimely under Williams; untimely Rule 11 filings do not toll the post-conviction period.	Held: Timely — Supreme Court considered and denied the Rule 11 application on the merits, so March 23, 2016 was the final action and Bell’s June 2016 petition was within one year.
Did attorney misrepresentation/abandonment toll the limitations period?	Counsel’s failure to notify withdrawal and to file Rule 11 impeded Bell, constituting abandonment and tolling.	No sufficient facts showing attorney misrepresentation or that it affected filing.	Court did not need to resolve on tolling because petition was timely based on Supreme Court’s merits denial; remanded for post-conviction proceedings.
Did prison lockdowns/limited access to legal materials toll the filing period?	Lockdowns and limited library access prevented timely filing.	No adequate proof of causation for tolling.	Not decided on the merits — case remanded for consideration of claims including any factual showing of impediments.
Was Williams v. State controlling to bar tolling here?	N/A — Bell distinguished facts from Williams because Supreme Court ruled on the merits rather than dismissing as untimely.	Williams precludes treating an untimely Rule 11 filing as an appeal that delays the post-conviction clock.	Williams distinguished; because the Supreme Court considered (and denied) the application on the merits, Williams’ rule against tolling did not apply.

Key Cases Cited

Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (discussing limits on due-process tolling when Rule 11 filings are untimely)