Starbrough Jones v. State of Tennessee
W2016-00197-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Mar 14, 2017Background
- Petitioner Starbrough Jones was convicted of felony murder, especially aggravated robbery, and attempted especially aggravated robbery and received an effective sentence of life plus 21 years; direct appeals were exhausted and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied review in 2009.
- Jones filed a pro se post-conviction petition on April 29, 2014, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; he acknowledged the petition was untimely and sought tolling based on counsel’s conduct.
- Trial/appellate counsel sent Jones a letter (Oct. 1, 2008) stating he would not file a petition to the Tennessee Supreme Court, enclosed the Court of Criminal Appeals opinion, explained the 60‑day deadline to file a pro se application, and filed a motion to withdraw; the Court of Criminal Appeals granted withdrawal (Oct. 10, 2008).
- At the post-conviction hearing Jones testified counsel told him he was withdrawing and did not advise him about post-conviction relief; Jones claimed he only learned about post-conviction procedures years later from other inmates and promptly filed once informed.
- The post-conviction court found Jones not credible, emphasized that counsel’s letter informed Jones of withdrawal and appellate rights and noted Jones filed a timely pro se application to the supreme court as instructed; the court dismissed the petition as untimely.
- On appeal Jones conceded untimeliness but argued due process required tolling because counsel allegedly did not officially notify withdrawal and failed to advise him of post-conviction rights; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires tolling the one‑year post-conviction statute of limitations because counsel withdrew without "official" notice | Jones: counsel’s failure to give "official" notice and not advising on post-conviction rights amounted to abandonment/misconduct warranting tolling | State: record (counsel’s letter and withdrawal order) shows Jones was informed; ignorance of procedures does not toll limitations | Tolling not required; post-conviction court’s credibility findings upheld and petition dismissed as untimely |
| Whether counsel’s conduct constituted extraordinary misconduct that prevented timely filing | Jones: counsel misled or abandoned him, preventing timely filing | State: counsel expressly notified Jones of withdrawal and appeal deadlines; no evidence of affirmative misrepresentation | No extraordinary misconduct shown; due diligence/delay prongs not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (attorney misrepresentations regarding withdrawal/appeal can toll limitations when they mislead defendant)
- Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (due process may require tolling in limited circumstances; sets out diligence and extraordinary‑circumstance framework)
- Smith v. State, 357 S.W.3d 322 (Tenn. 2011) (mixed questions of law and fact review for tolling issues)
- Momon v. State, 18 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. 1999) (deference to post‑conviction court’s credibility and factual findings)
- Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (strict application of limitations may be tolled when it denies reasonable opportunity to assert claim)