WPC -9ū#i"AGm^9@>WE ڛ}ߔu>1W1 sVqc-qR [rވxЖD: VM>XXIMuM%-^AZ"Arial RegularHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLhgnf PEQRDST vUDVUW6eXӀbrgrammar*greivencegrievancegreive grieve(garanteeguarantee4hankerchiefhandkerchief heighth height hygenehygiene*hipocrisyhypocrisy iI6independanceindependence:indespensableindispensable"interuminterim4iresi((3s$ A!  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XKXXX>Y>XXKM      0  (#$  0  "Arial Regularocasionoccasion ocur occur,occurenceoccurrence$paralelparallel,parlimentparliament(neumoniapneumonia*porselainporcelain potatoe potato"problyprobably"protegeprot)g),psycologypsychology(rasberryraspberry"recieverec XK XXXb  XXK   Ad FILEDXK X b  July27,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular XK XXXb  XXK   Ad FILEDXK X b  July26,1999CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd A!  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XKXXX>Y>XXKM  WWTTTT   XTc $$TT)>>YT?)WW7XXdd7XXbXr*<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  rXbbr*<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  rbXX@P P DWW TBeB |TT>n>?TINWWTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @)DATNASHVILLEo[X` hDp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACXoWWRICHARDANTHONY,WW h    D ) ,|  `     h    D ) p C.C.A.NO.WW01C019903CC00082WW P   ` Appellant,   h    D ) p (No.WW29,505WWBelow) $  `     h    D ) p WWCOFFEEWWCOUNTY    VS. `     h    D ) |   `     h    D ) p TheHon.WWL.CraigJohnsonWW P  STATEOFTENNESSEE, h    D ) $ t    `     h    D )  p (DismissalofPostConvictionPetition)   H   ` Appellee.   h    D )     `     h    D ) p AFFIRMEDPURSUANTTORULE20   WWTTWWTMT@+DORDER  l  WWVVWW `  ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponthestatesmotionrequestingthatthejudgmentintheabovestyledcausebeaffirmedpursuanttoRule20,TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRules.Thepetitioneropposesthemotion. `  ItappearsthatonDecember2,1993,WWajuryfoundthepetitionerguiltyofaggravatedrobberyandaggravatedburglary.Thepetitionerwassubsequentlysentencedto20yearsand10years,respectively,tobeservedconsecutively.WWWWThisCourtaffirmedtheconvictionsandsentences,Statev.RichardLeeAnthony,No.01C019504CC00115(Tenn. ! Crim.App.,atNashville,Feb.13,1996),andtheSupremeCourtdeniedpermissiontoappealonJuly8,1996.Subsequently,onDecember14,1998,thepetitionerfiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionrelief.ThetrialWWcourtdismissedthepetitionasoutsidethestatuteofWWlimitations.WWWeaffirm. `  PursuanttoT.C.A.4030206(a),apetitionermustpetitionforpostconvictionreliefwithinoneyearofthedateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourttowhichanappealwastaken.UnderT.C.A.4030202(b),acourtdoesnothavejurisdictiontoconsiderapetitionforpostconvictionreliefifitwasfiledoutsidetheoneyearstatuteofWWlimitationsWWunless(1)theclaiminthepetitionisbaseduponafinalrulingofanappellatecourtestablishingaconstitutionalrightthatwasnotrecognizedasexistingatthetimeoftrial,ifretrospectiveapplicationofthatrightisrequired;(2)theclaiminthepetitionisbaseduponnewscientificevidenceestablishingthatsuchpetitionerisactuallyinnocentoftheoffenseoroffensesforwhichthepetitionerwasconvicted;or(3)theclaiminthepetitionseeksrelieffromasentencethatwasenhancedbecauseofapreviousconvictionandsuchconvictioninthecaseinwhichtheclaimisassertedwasnotaguiltypleawithanagreedsentence,andthepreviousconvictionhassubsequentlybeenheldtobeinvalid. ;P6C Ї `  Inthepresentcase,thepetitionerfiledhispetitionforpostconvictionreliefoutsidethestatuteofWWlimitationsWWWWsetforthinT.C.A.4030202(a),andheWWdoesnotsubmitthatWWWWanyofhisclaimsfallwithinoneoftheexceptionssetforthinT.C.A.4030202(b).WWInstead,thepetitionercontendsthatthestatuteoflimitationsshouldbetolledbecauseheretainedcounselwhofailedtofileaWpetiitonWWpetitionWforpostWconviccitonWWconvictionWreliefandwhoadvisedhimthattheoneyearstatuteoflimitationswouldnotapply. `  TL3$s3$$48LTT/&| />>nTThestatuteclearlystatesthattheoneyearlimitationsperiodshallnotbetolledfor D  anyreason,includinganytollingorsavingprovisionotherwiseavailableatlaworequity.T.C.A.4030202(a).#>n> //&|#ԀMorePOvoOPQover,QRWefindthatRapplicationofthestatuteoflimitationsinthisinstancedoesnot n violatedueprocessprinciples.InBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,208(Tenn.1992),our   SupremeCourtheldthatincertainsituationsapplicationofthestatuteoflimitationsinapost-convictionproceedingmightviolateconstitutionaldueprocess.SISndeterminingwhethertherehasbeensuchaviolation,theessentialquestioniswhetherthetimeperiodallowedbylawprovidesthepetitionerafairandreasonableopportunitytofilesuit.Id.InBurford,theSupreme *z Courtheldthatthepetitionerwas"caughtinaproceduraltrapandunabletoinitiatelitigation...despitetheapproachofthethree-yearlimitation."Id.Nosuchtrapexistshere.ThisCourthas b  previouslyruledthatfailuretocomplywiththestatuteoflimitations,evenwhenbaseduponerroneousadvicefromanattorney,doesnotprovideanexception.Statev.Phillips,904S.W.2d !$ 123,124(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).WW `  ITIS,THEREFORE,ORDEREDthatthestatesmotiontoaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtunderRule20,TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRules,isgranted,andthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Itappearingthatthepetitionerisindigent,costsoftheseproceedingsaretaxedtothestate.WWT30TTTWWWWWWTTWWWWTMT `     h    D  p _____________________________ `     h    D  p WWTHOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGEWWWWCONCUR:_____________________________ 480< WWDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGEWWWWWWUUWWWW_____________________________WWJERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE