State vs. Bruce Edward Rochefort
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED AUGUST 1999 SESSION September 27, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. BRUCE EDWARD ROCHEFORT, Defendant/Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.C.A. No. 01C01-9902-CR-00029 Dekalb County Honorable Leon Burns, Jr. Judge (Post-Conviction Relief Denied) Affirmed Rule 20 FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: BRUCE EDWARD ROCHEFORT CCA/SCCC P.O. Box 279 Clifton, Tennessee 38425-0279 PAUL G. SUMMERS Attorney General & Reporter CLINTON J. MORGAN Counsel for the State 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0493 OPINION FILED: _________________________________ AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20 L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JUDGE OPINION The appellant, Bruce E. Rochefort, referred herein as the petitioner, has appealed as of right from the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Dekalb County Criminal Court. The petitioner presents one issue on appeal: 1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing his petition for postconviction relief? After a review of the record, briefs of the parties, and appropriate law, we AFFIRM the trial court s judgment. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On March 7, 1997, the petitioner entered two pleas of guilty to aggravated assault and was taken into custody. The petitioner was represented by court appointed counsel. There was no appeal of any nature. On November 27, 1998, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief with the Dekalb County Criminal Court. The petitioner asserts, through a number of sub-issues, that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel in violation of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9, of the Tennessee Constitution. On January 7, 1999, the trial court summarily dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing based upon the statute of limitations. The petitioner contends the trial court erred in that the petitioner did not learn of his counsel s ineffective assistance of counsel until months after his conviction. LEGAL ANALYSIS Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-202(a) provides that a person in custody under a sentence of a court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief under this part within one (1) year of the date of the final action of the highest state appellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, within one (1) year of the date on which the judgment became final. . . . The statute further provides that the limitations period shall not be tolled for any reason, including any tolling or saving provision otherwise available at law or equity. Id. There are certain exceptions in this statute which do not apply in this case. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(b). In the present case, the petitioner filed his petition for post-conviction relief outside the statute of limitations set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-202(a), and he has failed to establish that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel falls within one of 2 the exceptions in § 40-30-202(b). It is, therefore, ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed pursuant to Rule 20. L. T. LAFFERTY, SENIOR JUDGE CONCUR: JOE G. RILEY, 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.
