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.
Quincy L. Goodine v. State of Tennessee
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2002-02819-CCA-R3-PC
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; May 29, 2003; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Quincy L. Goodine pled guilty in September 1998 to multiple charges including attempted rape and theft, leading to a nine-year effective sentence, which included eleven months and twenty-nine days of confinement followed by eight years of probation. After serving about six months, his probation was revoked in December 1999 due to new charges, non-payment of restitution, failure to attend counseling, and curfew violations. Goodine did not appeal this revocation. He filed a petition for post-conviction relief in September 2002, which was dismissed by the post-conviction court for being defective—challenging judgments from multiple proceedings and being untimely as per Tennessee Code Annotated. Goodine's appeal argues that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced due to a child support judgment being newly discovered evidence, that his due process rights were violated during the probation revocation, and contends the timeliness of his post-conviction petition. The appellate court affirmed the post-conviction court's dismissal, concluding that Goodine did not present a valid claim for relief, and the petition was barred by the statute of limitations. The State contends that the Petitioner did not properly establish a claim for post-conviction relief, that the petition is barred by the statute of limitations, that the Petitioner’s child support obligation does not constitute new or scientific evidence of innocence, and that there was no due process violation regarding the revocation of probation. The court agrees with the State, affirming the post-conviction court's summary dismissal of the petition. To obtain post-conviction relief, a petitioner must demonstrate that their conviction or sentence is void or voidable due to a constitutional rights violation, as stipulated in Tenn. Code Ann. 40-30-203. The burden is on the petitioner to prove allegations with clear and convincing evidence (Tenn. Code Ann. 40-30-210(f)). Although factual findings by a post-conviction court undergo de novo review, they hold a presumption of correctness unless contradicted by a preponderance of evidence (Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 456). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo without any presumption of correctness (Id. at 457). The Petitioner did not allege any constitutional rights violations. The court noted that the Petitioner is improperly attempting to appeal the December 6, 1999 probation revocation, for which no appeal was filed. The petition for post-conviction relief was submitted on September 6, 2002, exceeding the one-year statute of limitations under Tenn. Code Annotated 40-30-202(a). The court found no grounds to grant relief from the statute of limitations based on due process claims. While Tenn. Code Annotated 40-30-202(b)(2) allows for late claims based on new scientific evidence of actual innocence, the Petitioner did not present such evidence. The court also determined that the Petitioner’s due process rights were not violated during the probation revocation, as records indicate he was allowed to defend himself and that the revocation was based on several grounds, not solely failure to pay fees. The judgment of the post-conviction court is therefore affirmed.