COURTNEY ANDERSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content

COURTNEY ANDERSON v. STATE OF TENNESSEE

Posted by: Karen Belcher on Oct 18, 2023

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; Nicholas W. Spangler, Deputy Attorney General; Steve Mulroy, District Attorney General; and Danielle McMollum, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Attorneys 2: Terrell Tooten, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellee, Courtney Anderson.

Judge(s): DYER

This is a State appeal, filed by the State Attorney General and Reporter, from the entry of an order granting the petitioner’s, Courtney Anderson’s, motion to reopen his postconviction and amending/reducing his original sentence of 162 years, 11 months, and 29 days to a time served sentence of 25 years. The State appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s motion as it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and the petitioner failed to prove the statute should be tolled. Additionally, the State submits that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend the petitioner’s sentence under the post-conviction statute and that the trial court’s actions amount to an improper commutation of the petitioner’s sentence. The petitioner contends that the State waived any challenge to the statute of limitations by failing to raise the issue below and that his claim meets the requirements of the statute and allows for the tolling of the statute, and therefore, the trial court properly granted the relief requested. Upon our thorough review of the applicable law and the briefs and arguments of both parties, we conclude that the instant petition is barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that the petitioner failed to establish and the trial court failed to find a proper basis for tolling the statute. Accordingly, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitioner’s motion and amend the petitioner’s sentence. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court, reinstate the petitioner’s original sentence, and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: