Maria Maclin v. State of Tennessee

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2010-00123-CCA-R3-PC

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; March 15, 2011; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Maria Maclin appeals the dismissal of her post-conviction relief petition by the Criminal Court of Shelby County. The court affirmed the dismissal based on the State’s motion under Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Maclin was previously convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-two years. Her direct appeal raised issues regarding jury instructions and sentencing, which were rejected by the appellate court. Subsequently, Maclin filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, which was denied after an evidentiary hearing. This denial was also affirmed on appeal. In 2007, Maclin sought to reopen her post-conviction petition, claiming insufficient evidence for her conviction and unconstitutional jury instructions, but the lower court denied this motion for lack of sufficient grounds. An appeal was filed, but jurisdiction was not established due to non-compliance with statutory requirements for the appeal process.

The court dismissed the appeal in State v. Maria Maclin (No. W2007-02274-CCA-R3-PC) due to the Petitioner's non-compliance with statutory requirements. Key issues included: (1) the Petitioner filed her application for permission to appeal the denial of her motion to reopen beyond the ten-day deadline as mandated by T.C.A. 40-30-117(c) and Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28. 10(b); (2) she failed to include necessary documentation, such as the motion to reopen or the State's response; (3) the notice of appeal was insufficient as it did not meet the requirements for an application for permission to appeal, nor did it present adequate grounds for reopening the post-conviction petition, referencing Graham v. State, 90 S.W.3d 687, 691 (Tenn. 2002). Even assuming proper filing, the court indicated the application would still fail on its merits, as the allegations did not fit the exceptions outlined in T.C.A. 40-30-117(a)(1). 

The first post-conviction petition was timely, but the Petitioner filed a second petition on November 4, 2009, claiming a right to a full hearing despite the dismissal of her previous appeal and alleging due process violations regarding evidence sufficiency and jury instructions. The State argued for summary dismissal, citing the prior conclusions of the Court of Criminal Appeals regarding statutory compliance and the merits of the motion to reopen, and noted the second petition was a successive filing per T.C.A. 40-30-102(c). The post-conviction court dismissed the second petition on December 15, 2009, adopting the State's reasoning. The Petitioner appealed, asserting entitlement to review based on issues raised in her second petition, including due process violations which she claimed could be reviewed for plain error. The State moved to affirm the summary dismissal under Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The State argues for the summary dismissal of the Petitioner’s second post-conviction petition based on the Post-Conviction Procedure Act, which mandates such dismissals under T.C.A. 40-30-102(c) when a prior petition has been resolved on its merits. The Petitioner’s first post-conviction petition was indeed heard and decided, allowing for an appeal. Consequently, the State contends that the new petition does not present any meritorious grounds for relitigating the case and that all issues raised have been waived or previously determined under T.C.A. 40-30-106(g, h). 

Additionally, the State highlights that none of the Petitioner’s allegations meet the narrow exceptions for reopening post-conviction proceedings outlined in T.C.A. 40-30-117(a). It asserts that claims regarding insufficient evidence and improper jury instructions cannot be reviewed under the plain error doctrine as established in State v. West, 19 S.W.3d 753, 755-57 (Tenn. 2000), since these claims have been waived or previously determined. The State also maintains that a failed attempt to appeal a dismissed motion cannot be remedied by filing a new petition on the same grounds.

The Petitioner’s initial post-conviction petition was filed within the one-year statute of limitations and dismissed after an evidentiary hearing. Her subsequent motion to reopen was also denied, and her second petition, filed on November 4, 2009, was beyond the one-year limit. Therefore, the post-conviction court properly dismissed the second petition as it was based on issues that had already been resolved or waived.

The Petitioner’s allegations do not meet the criteria for reopening a first post-conviction petition as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-117(a). A motion to reopen is permissible only if it is based on: (1) a final appellate court ruling recognizing a new constitutional right, filed within one year; (2) new scientific evidence proving actual innocence; (3) a claim related to an invalid previous conviction affecting a sentence, also filed within one year of the invalidation; or (4) facts that, if true, would clearly entitle the petitioner to relief. The lower court's decision to summarily dismiss the second post-conviction petition is upheld, as the Petitioner failed to establish grounds for tolling the one-year statute of limitations based on due process concerns, which the court deemed inapplicable. The Court of Criminal Appeals, under Rule 20, affirms the post-conviction court's judgment, as the case does not warrant a published opinion and the evidence does not contradict the findings of the post-conviction court. The State’s motion is granted.