I respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority’s opinion which affirms part of the post-conviction court’s summary dismissal of the post-conviction petition. A colorable claim was made in the pro se petition. The post-conviction court clearly erred by summarily dismissing the petition. I conclude that upon remand under these circumstances the interests of justice dictate that the entire pro se petition must be considered by the post-conviction court. It may be that some of Petitioner’s claims have been waived or previously determined - but that should be determined after a full hearing. This court should not sanction a rush to judgment when a trial court has erred as in this case. Accordingly, I would respectfully reverse the order of the post-conviction court without affirming any portion of it.
Case Number
M2014-00948-CCA-R3-PC
Originating Judge
Judge David Earl Durham
Case Name
John C. Crim v. State of Tennessee-Concurring in part and dissenting in part
Date Filed
Dissent or Concur
No
Download PDF Version
crimjohncon.pdf44.79 KB