Frederick Demetrius DeBerry v. State of Tennessee

The Petitioner, Frederick Demetrius Deberry, argues on appeal that the post-conviction court erred by summarily dismissing his pro se “Motion to Amend Post-Conviction Petition” and “Petition of ‘Actual Innocence.’” He argues that House Bill 6011required the post‑conviction court to amend and reconsider his filings and to grant a hearing on his asserted “new evidence.” The State counters that his claims are waived and, alternatively, that his pleadings were untimely and based on a misinterpretation of HB 601. Because Tennessee law requires properly supported appellate claims and a timely statutory vehicle for relief—and the Petitioner’s filings satisfy neither—the post‑conviction court committed no error. We affirm.