Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mario Gates, Pro Se v. State of Tennessee
Citation: Not availableDocket: W2002-02873-CCA-R3-PC
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; December 30, 2003; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
MARIO GATES, pro se, appeals the denial of his motion to reopen his post-conviction relief petition by the Criminal Court for Shelby County, which was affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee. The petitioner, convicted of multiple serious offenses in 1994 and sentenced to fifty years, initially filed a post-conviction relief petition in 1996, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. This petition was dismissed as time-barred. In November 2002, Gates attempted to file a motion to reopen his post-conviction petition, arguing trial counsel's ineffectiveness and asserting that his sentence was illegal. He contended that the statute of limitations should not apply due to reliance on state-appointed representation. The trial court dismissed this motion as well, citing it was also time-barred and lacking a valid basis to waive the statute of limitations. The 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act reduced the filing period from three years to one year, allowing Gates until May 10, 1996, to file his initial petition, which he did two months late. According to the Act, only one petition for post-conviction relief is permitted, although a motion to reopen may be filed under certain limited conditions, none of which were met in Gates' case. As a result, the appellate court granted the State's motion to affirm the trial court's judgment. Under Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-217(a), the petitioner is not eligible for reopening his first post-conviction petition due to the absence of applicable exceptions. Specifically, the second exception for new scientific evidence of actual innocence, the third exception concerning sentence enhancement, and the fourth exception related to underlying facts establishing entitlement to relief are not relevant. Furthermore, even if the petitioner had presented a valid ground for reopening under § 40-30-217(a), the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the petitioner did not comply with the required procedural steps. An appeal of the trial court's denial must be filed within ten days, accompanied by relevant documents, which the petitioner failed to do. Consequently, the court affirms the trial court's decision, granting the state's motion and ruling it is without jurisdiction to consider the matter further.