Rickie Reese vs. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY SESSION, 1998 RICKIE D. REESE, Appe llant, VS. STATE OF TENNESSEE, Appe llant. FILED August 7, 1998 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9707-CC-00314 BEDFORD COUNTY HON. CHARLES LEE JUDGE (Post-Co nviction Re lief) FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: RICKIE D. REESE Pro Se SCCC - Apollo A - 218 P. O. Box 279 Clifton, TN 38425-5346 JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General and Reporter CLINTON J. MORGAN Coun sel for the S tate 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 MIKE MCCOWN District Attorney General ROBERT CRIGLER Assistant District Attorn ey One Public Square, Ste. 100 Shelbyville, TN 37160 ORDER FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE ORDER Appellant Rickie D. Reese pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated rape. He was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to fifteen years incarceration with the Tennessee Department of Correction. Appellant presents the following issue for our conside ration on this ap peal: w hethe r the trial c ourt er red in dismiss ing App ellant's pe tition for post-c onviction re lief. After a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Appellant filed his pro se petition for post-conviction re lief in the Bedford Coun ty Circuit Court on May 30, 1997. On July 7, 1997, the trial court dismissed Appe llant's petition, determining that the petition was time barred and that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In his petition, Appellant alleges that he has been incarcerated for five years and fourteen days. He contends, inter alia , that he is being illegally restrained beyond the lawful period of incarcera tion beca use the Tenn essee Board of Paroles denie d his re lease until March 2000. He furthe r claims th at the trial cou rt neglecte d to apprise him that the plea agreement could be violated at a later date and that the stipulated condition as to h is thirty percent release eligibility date was discretionary and not manda tory. Prior to the adoption of the recent Post-Conviction Procedure Act, petitions like the present one had to be filed within three years of the date of the final action of the highest state appellate court to which an appeal was taken. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-1 02 (1995, Repl.). However, the new Post-Conviction Procedu re Act, which took effect on May 10, 19 95, su bseq uently shortened the three-year statute of limitations to one year. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq. (Supp. 1996). Appellant's statute of limitations for the filing of a petition for -2 - post-conviction relief began to run in 1992, the year in which he avers that he pleaded guilty. Under either the old or th e new P ost-Co nviction P rocedu re Act, Appe llant's petition is time barred because he filed the petition five years after the date of his conviction. W e conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the May 30, 1997 petition as being barred by the statute of limitations. Acco rdingly , we affirm the trial court's judgment pursuant to Court of Crimina l Appea ls Rule 2 0. ____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE CONCUR: ___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE ___________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE -3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
