Shanterrica Madden v. State of Tennessee
M2016-01396-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Madden was convicted in Rutherford County of second-degree murder and evidence tampering; convictions and sentence affirmed on direct appeal and certiorari denied by U.S. Supreme Court.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court denied permission to appeal on Sept. 18, 2014; the one-year post-conviction limitations period expired on Sept. 19, 2015.
- Madden filed a pro se post-conviction petition on March 29, 2016, asserting ineffective assistance, insufficiency of evidence, and due-process/juror-issue claims. The State moved to dismiss as time-barred.
- Trial counsel (deceased) had sent a letter dated April 14, 2015 telling Madden she had one year from the U.S. Supreme Court denial to file; co-counsel and trial counsel had earlier told her the deadline was March 2016 (incorrect).
- At the evidentiary hearing, co-counsel testified they sent legal documents when requested and denied any intentional misconduct or withholding; Madden testified she worked on the petition in prison and thought counsel would file because he remained her attorney.
- The post-conviction court denied equitable tolling, finding trial counsel’s erroneous deadline alone insufficient to establish extraordinary circumstances preventing timely filing; Madden appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Madden's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due-process tolling excuses an otherwise untimely post-conviction petition | Trial counsel’s incorrect advice about the filing deadline and continued representation prevented timely filing; due process requires tolling | The petition was filed after the statutory deadline; counsel’s mistaken deadline does not amount to extraordinary circumstances warranting tolling | Court affirmed: mistaken deadline alone does not justify equitable/due-process tolling; petition time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (due-process tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstances; attorney’s incorrect deadline alone is generally insufficient)
- Bush v. State, 428 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014) (reiterating that tolling is reserved for rare, external circumstances making enforcement unconscionable)
- Smith v. State, 357 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. 2011) (statute tolled only where circumstances beyond petitioner’s control prevented timely filing)
- Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (tolling may apply where counsel misleads petitioner into believing appeals are ongoing)
- State v. Phillips, 904 S.W.2d 123 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (petitioner’s ignorance of post-conviction procedure, even from attorney negligence, does not toll limitations)