William George Cox v. State of Tennessee
M2016-00012-CCA-R3-PC
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 17, 2016Background
- In 2008 Cox pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and theft; trial court imposed an effective 10-year sentence with community corrections placement.
- Cox's community corrections was revoked after alleged violations in 2009 and again in 2010; he was resentenced and later transferred to supervised probation in February 2012.
- In February 2014, after a new arrest, Cox moved to "place his sentence into effect" so he could receive jail credit; the court granted the motion on March 6, 2014 and entered amended judgments executing the sentence.
- Cox filed a pro se post-conviction petition in March 2015, claiming trial counsel coerced him into waiving a hearing and thus provided ineffective assistance when he sought execution of his sentence in 2014.
- The post-conviction court dismissed the petition as untimely and impermissible collateral attack on a probation revocation; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed but remanded to correct clerical errors in the 2014 judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Cox's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cox received ineffective assistance of counsel at the 2014 proceeding | Counsel coerced Cox into waiving a hearing and seeking execution of his sentence | Petition is untimely and improperly attacks probation revocation; no relief warranted | Claim dismissed as time-barred and not cognizable in post-conviction; no relief granted |
| Whether the 2014 amended judgments contain errors requiring correction | N/A (court found errors) | Clerical errors exist that misstate the status of alternative sentencing revocation | Trial court must correct clerical errors in the March 2014 amended judgments on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Nix, 40 S.W.3d 459 (Tenn. 2001) (statute of limitations for post-conviction is jurisdictional and petitioner must plead timeliness or tolling)
- Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272 (Tenn. 2000) (due process tolling of post-conviction limitations available only in limited circumstances)
- Burford v. State, 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) (discusses due process considerations for tolling limitations)
- Sands v. State, 903 S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1995) (framework for analyzing whether limitations period should be tolled)
- Carpenter v. State, 136 S.W.3d 608 (Tenn. 2004) (post-conviction may challenge resentencing after community corrections revocation for ineffective assistance)
- Young v. State, 101 S.W.3d 430 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (post-conviction procedure cannot be used to challenge mere probation revocation)