ÿWPCƒ" …# VULa %­ 0 (³4ÛïU:þ 0J8 ‚ 0TŠ w@Þ  0^& 0D„ 0[È 0h# 0l‹ 0D÷ 0r; 0|­ 0†) 0¯ 1u? 0d´ BU *5B)_DCˆ AMË D3 0@Kè‹¿sÙ2X *cv~vÓ  AOÞ Æ-! 0Dó! D/7" Bf"˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ.@FÐ Z‹4GeoSlab703 Lt BT LightX($¡¡R¦"¸p¸€3|x£&@"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ƒ&„&D…&Õ’&“&D”&•&–&—& e˜&Ó€2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô($Ó$‘‘òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(3¨à$¥¥Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òMay€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó µÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€T.C.A.€ðð40„30„201€òòet.€seq.óóÏ(Supp.€1996)€applies€to€all€post„conviction€petitions€filed€after€May€10,€1995.€ÏòòSeeóó€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Act€207,€Section€3.€€T.C.A.€ðð40„30„202(a)€provides€thatÏpetitions€for€post„conviction€relief€must€be€filed€within€one€year€of€the€date€of€theÏfinal€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€is€taken,€or€ifÏno€appeal€is€taken,€within€one€year€of€the€date€on€which€the€judgment€becameÏfinal.Ô€ÔÌ ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóNow€T.C.A.€ðð40„30„202(b)(1).Ì NÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóIn€òòRickmanóó€the€Supreme€Court€overruled€prior€precedent,€holding€thatÏthere€is€no€ð ðsex€crimesðð€exception€to€the€general€rule€that€other€crimes€evidenceÏis€not€admissible€in€criminal€prosecutions,€but€there€is€a€narrow€special€ruleÏwhich€admits€prior€sex€crimes€into€evidence€if€the€indictment€is€not€time€specificÏand€the€other€crimes€allegedly€occurred€during€the€time€frame€charged€in€theÏindictments.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€&ÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóAlthough€the€attorneys€stipulated€during€the€hearing€on€this€matter€thatÏthe€original€trial€transcript€would€be€made€a€collective€exhibit,€it€apparently€wasÏnever€tendered€to€the€court,€and€was€not€sent€as€part€of€the€record€on€appeal.€ÏTherefore,€this€court€has€considered€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€only€insofarÏas€it€is€included€in€previous€appellate€opinions.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€).(A1-j| ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Ìà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌJAMES€ROBERT€BLEVINS,à à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9611„CR„00396Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àWASHINGTON€COUNTYÌà àà àAppellant,à àà à)à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Arden€L.€Hill,€JudgeÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà à)€€€à àNo.€21467€BELOWÌÌÌÌó óÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌJOHN€E.€HERBISONà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ2016€Eighth€Avenue€Southà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌNashville,€TN€37204Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSANDY€R.€COPOUSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€E.€CROCKETTÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àRt.€19,€Box€99Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJohnson€City,€TN€37601ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€LaGUARDIAÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPost€Office€Box€38Ìà àà àà àà àà à€€€€à àJonesborough,€TN€37659ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌCORNELIA€A.€CLARK,ÌSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌÑ7€  à XXdðXXdð7ÑÌà@ àòòò òOPINIONóóó óÌÌÓÓà àAppellant€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief€based€on€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€ÏAppellant€contends€that€the€ruling€in€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€824€(Tenn.Ï1994),€clarifying€the€rule€of€when€other€uncharged€instances€of€sexual€conductÏcan€be€admitted€into€evidence,€creates€a€new,€retroactive€constitutional€rule€thatÏvoids€his€conviction€and€sentence.€€He€also€asserts€a€denial€of€equal€protection.€ÏWe€disagree€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àIn€1988€appellant€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€four€counts€of€rape.€€HeÏreceived€four€sentences€of€seven€years,€to€be€served€consecutively.€€On€directÏappeal€appellant€specifically€raised€the€issue€of€admission€into€evidence€ofÏsexual€encounters€between€the€victim€and€the€appellant€outside€the€time€frameÏalleged€in€the€indictments.€€The€conviction€and€the€sentence€were€affirmed€byÏthis€court.€€òòState€v.€James€R.€Blevinsóó,€No.€250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏAugust€31,€1989).€€The€petition€for€rehearing€was€denied€October€18,€1989.€€TheÍSupreme€Court€denied€application€for€permission€to€appeal,€concurring€inÏresults€only,€on€January2,€1990.€€The€Court€denied€the€application€to€rehear€onÏFebruary5,€1990.€ÌÌà àIn€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€appellant€alleged€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€After€an€evidentiary€hearing€the€trial€court€dismissed€theÏpetition,€finding€that€defendant€had€effective€trial€representation.€€This€courtÏupheld€the€dismissal.€€òòJames€R.€Blevins€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9106„CR„00171Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€October€27,€1994).€€The€application€for€permissionÏto€appeal€was€denied€February€6,€1995.ÌÌà àOn€March€3,€1993,€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€habeas€corpus.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€it€failed€to€allege€grounds€that€would€warrant€the€issuance€ofÏsuch€a€writ€and,€if€treated€as€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€was€barred€byÏthe€statute€of€limitations.€€That€dismissal€was€upheld€by€this€court€in€òòJames€R.ÏBlevins€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03„C„01„9308„CR„00271€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏJanuary€5,€1994).ÌÌà àThe€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€now€before€the€court€was€filedÏJanuary5,€1995.€€It€again€raises€the€issue€of€admission€of€evidence€of€other€sexÏcrimes€not€charged€in€the€presentments.€€Under€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€thisÏpetition€was€filed,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„102(f)(1)€required€that€an€individualÏapply€for€post„conviction€relief€within€three€years€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€ofÍthe€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€was€taken.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€AppellantððsÏpetition€in€this€matter€was€filed€well€beyond€that€three„year€limitations€period.ÌÌà àHowever,€appellant€contends€that€the€facts€in€his€case€place€him€withinÏthe€exception€created€in€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204,€208€(Tenn.€1992)Ïand/or€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„105,× ƒ0 ××  ×€granting€relief€when€a€case€involves€aÏconstitutional€right€not€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€if€the€constitution€requiresÏretrospective€application.€€The€appellant€relies€on€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2dÏ824€(1994),× ƒ1 ××  ×€asserting€that€òòRickmanóó€creates€a€new€constitutional€rule€of€lawÏwhich€was€not€in€existence€at€the€time€of€any€earlier€petitions.€€AfterÏconsideration,€we€find€the€defendantððs€claims€do€not€properly€fall€within€either€ofÏthese€exceptions€to€the€statute€of€limitations.Ìà àFirst,€the€decision€on€which€appellant€in€this€case€relies€does€notÍannounce€a€new€constitutional€rule,€but€only€a€new€interpretation€of€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€404.€€òòState€v.€Rickmanóó,€876€S.W.2d€at€829.€€It€does€not€even€exclude€allÏevidence€of€other€sex€crimes€when€an€indictment€is€not€time€specific.€€It€focusesÏonly€on€evidentiary€relevance€of€such€other€acts.€€Accordingly,€this€issue€isÏwithout€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àSecond,€even€if€a€new€constitutional€rule€had€been€announced€inÏòòRickmanóó,€retroactive€application€would€not€be€required.€€Generally,€a€newÏconstitutional€rule€of€law€is€one€that€ð ðbreaks€new€ground€or€imposes€a€newÏobligation€on€the€states€or€the€federal€government€.€.€.€[or]€if€the€result€was€notÏdictated€by€a€precedent€existing€at€the€time€the€defendantððs€conviction€becameÏfinalðð.€€òòTeague€v.€Laneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€301,€109€S.Ct.€1060,€1070,€103€L.Ed.2dÏ334,€349€(1989);€òòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€751€(Tenn.€1993).€€A€newÏrule€of€òòfederalóó€constitutional€law€is€now€retroactively€applied€to€all€cases,€stateÏor€federal,€pending€on€direct€review€or€not€yet€final,€regardless€of€whether€theÏnew€rule€constitutes€a€ð ðclear€breakðð€with€the€past.€€òòGriffith€v.€Kentuckyóó,€479€U.S.Ï314,€107€S.Ct.€708,€93€L.Ed.2d€649€(1987).€€However,€a€new€federalÏconstitutional€rule€will€not€be€given€retroactive€application€to€cases€on€collateralÏreview€unless€(1)€the€rule€places€certain€kinds€of€primary,€private€individualÏconduct€beyond€the€powers€of€the€state€to€proscribe,€or€(2)€the€rule€requires€theÏobservance€of€procedures€implicit€in€the€concept€of€ordered€liberty.€€òòTeague€v.ÏLaneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€109€S.Ct.€1060,€103€L.Ed.2d€334€(1989).ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Meadowsóó€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€rejected€the€òòTeagueóóÏanalysis,€concluding€that€a€new€state€constitutional€rule€will€be€given€retroactiveÏeffect€only€if€it€materially€enhances€the€integrity€and€reliability€of€the€fact„findingÏprocess€at€trial.€€òòState€v.€Meadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€1993).€€AsÏfurther€refined€by€our€courts:ÌÌÌÓÓà8 àà à[A]€factor€which€weighs€heavily€in€favor€of€retroactiveÏapplication€of€a€new€rule€is€the€likelihood€that€it€will€enhance€theÏintegrity€and€reliability€of€the€fact€finding€process€of€the€trial.€€AÏfactor€which€weighs€heavily€against€retroactive€application€is€theÏprospect€that€the€integrity€of€the€fact„finding€process€at€trial€will€notÏbe€materially€enhanced,€coupled€with€the€wholesale€unsettling€ofÏfinal€judgments€of€conviction.ÌÌÌÌòòÓÓAdkins€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€334,€344€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€quoting€òòState€v.ÏRobbinsóó,€519€S.W.2d€799,€801€(Tenn.€1975).ÌÌà àThus,€even€€if€a€new€constitutional€rule€had€been€announced€in€òòRickmanóó,Ïwe€conclude€that€it€should€not€be€applied€retroactively€in€this€case€because,Ïapplying€the€òòMeadowsóó€standard,€the€rule€announced€therein€does€notÏmaterially€enhance€the€integrity€and€reliability€of€the€fact€finding€process.€ÏRetroactive€application€of€a€new€constitutional€rule€in€the€post„conviction€settingÏis€necessary€only€when€ð ðthe€old€rule€substantially€impairs€the€truth„findingÏfunction€at€trialðð€and€would€tend€to€raise€ð ðserious€questions€about€the€accuracyÏof€[the]€guilty€verdicts€.€.€.€ð ð.€€òòMeadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€755.€€Such€is€not€the€caseÍhere.€€The€defendant€confessed€to€police€that€he€abused€his€stepdaughter€twiceÏa€week€for€approximately€five€years.€€A€tape€recording€of€an€incriminatingÏconversation€between€the€defendant€and€the€victim€was€also€introduced.€€TheÏevidence€of€guilt€was€overwhelming.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Therefore,€retroactive€application€was€notÏrequired.ÌÌà àAppellant€finally€contends€that€he€has€been€denied€equal€protection€ofÏthe€law€because€he€has€been€treated€differently€from€those€persons€whoseÏcases€were€in€the€direct€appeal€process€at€or€after€the€time€òòRickmanóó€wasÏdecided.€€We€find€no€violation€of€appellantððs€rights.€€He€does€not€have€anÏunqualified€constitutional€right€to€retroactive€application€of€subsequent€case€lawÏonce€his€case€becomes€final.€€Ñ Ü ÑòòBarr€v.€Stateóó,€910€S.W.2d€462,€464€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995),€òòcitingóó€òòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€753„55€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àWe€find€no€error€of€law€mandating€reversal.€€The€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€dismissing€the€petition€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCORNELIA€A.€CLARKÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌJOHN€H.€PEAYÌJUDGEÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÌJUDGEÌÇÑ ° ÑÑ7€ #— XXdì XXdì7Ñà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€TENNESSEE€ATÏKNOXVILLEÌÌÌÌÌJAMES€ROBERT€BLEVINS,à à)à àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9611„CR„00396Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àWASHINGTON€COUNTYÌà àà àAppellant,à àà à)à à€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Arden€L.€Hill,€JudgeÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà à)€€€à àNo.€21467€BELOWÌÌÌÌÌó óÌÌà@ àòòò òJUDGMENTóóó óÌÌÌÌà àCame€the€appellant,€James€Robert€Blevins,€by€counsel€and€also€cameÏthe€attorney€general€on€behalf€of€the€state,€and€this€case€was€heard€on€theÏrecord€on€appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€of€Washington€County;€and€uponÏconsideration€thereof,€this€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€there€is€no€reversible€errorÏin€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àOur€opinion€is€hereby€incorporated€in€this€judgment€as€if€set€out€verbatim.ÌÌà àIt€is,€therefore,€ordered€and€adjudged€by€this€court€that€the€judgment€ofÏthe€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED,€and€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€Criminal€Court€ofÏWashington€County€for€execution€of€the€judgment€of€that€court€and€for€collectionÏof€costs€accrued€below.ÌÌà àIt€appears€that€the€appellant€is€indigent.€€Costs€of€this€appeal€will€be€paidÏby€the€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÌÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAMÌó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCornelia€A.€Clark,€Special€JudgeÌÌÌ