ÿWPCç …#†VU>Ü % 0í UB 4O c n­r 01 0DP 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0h 0rø 0|j 0†æ 0l 1uüU,q 0dU,U6-U.cU*‘B)»DCä AM'“të D3ò B%fB 0@¨v~èvÓf AO9ƈ 0 N 0DW D/› BʘIBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0ÙP =2@·^C· C <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÓ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€—|XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpio„p3|xN«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@(á(3$¤¤Ý ƒÓ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€.3XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ‰Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌFebruary€29,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó áÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€"ôÔÔ€$ÔAs€of€May€10,€1995,€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€was€replaced€by€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„202€which€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïshortens€the€time€limitation€to€one€year.€€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Acts€ch.€207,€€ðð€3.€Ì++++'ÿÿdxd d \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(á3˜³$¢¢Ý ƒÓ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€.3XXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€##Xd#ÑÑ#€##Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ h ÒÙ€€ÙÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€$ÔßL€'(&;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€DECEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÓÓMICKEY€ALLEN€BROWN,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9506„CR„00172Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Hon.€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€Judge€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€€€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌMickey€Allen€Brown,€Pro€Seà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌTDOC€#€130138à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌTurney€Center,€Unit€2B/49à àà àà àà àandÌRoute€1à àà àà àà àà àClinton€J.€MorganÌOnly,€TN€37140„9709à àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€à àà àà àà àà à450ÏJames€Robertson€Parkwayà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àVictor€S.€Johnson,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àandÌà àà àà àà àà àCheryl€BlackburnÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à102€Metro€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37201ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÇÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€Mickey€Allen€Brown,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€DavidsonÏCounty€Criminal€Court's€summary€dismissal€of€his€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€On€July€2,€1985,€the€petitioner€pled€guilty€to€assault€with€intent€to€commit€firstÏdegree€murder€and€received€a€twenty„year€sentence.€€The€sentence€was€to€runÏconcurrently€with€a€thirty„year€sentence€he€was€serving€in€Florida.€€He€completed€hisÏFlorida€confinement€on€December€3,€1991,€and€was€transferred€to€Tennessee€to€serveÏthe€remainder€of€the€Tennessee€sentence.€€On€December€2,€1994,€the€petitioner€filed€aÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€requesting€that€his€sentence€be€recalculated€to€reflectÏall€the€jail€credits€he€earned€in€Florida€and€alleging€that€he€received€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€that€resulted€in€an€involuntary€guilty€plea.€€The€trial€court€heldÏthat€the€post„conviction€relief€petition€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,€T.C.A.€ððÏ40„30„102.× ƒ) ××  ×€€The€petitioner€contends€that:ÌÓ  ÓÓÓà8 à(1)€dismissal€of€the€petition€violated€his€due€process€andÏequal€protection€rights;Ìà8 à(2)€dismissal€of€the€petition€constituted€a€breach€of€theÏpetitioner's€plea€agreement;Ìà8 à(3)€the€limitations€period€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€did€not€startÏto€run€until€the€petitioner€discovered€the€allegedÏconstitutional€violations;Ìà8 à(4)€application€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€unconstitutionallyÏimpaired€the€obligation€of€a€contract€in€violation€of€Art.€1,ÍSec.€20€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€Art.€1,€Sec.€10€ofÏthe€United€States€Constitution.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓWe€disagree€with€the€petitioner's€contentions€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òIó óÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€application€of€the€three„year€statute€ofÏlimitations€to€his€petition€violates€his€due€process€and€equal€protection€rights.€€HeÏrelies€on€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992)€and€argues€that€T.C.A.Ìðð€40„30„102€should€not€be€applied€in€his€case€because€he€did€not€receive€notice€of€itsÏenactment€while€he€was€incarcerated€in€Florida.€€The€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àIn€òòBurfordóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€although€the€three„year€limitationsÏperiod€in€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€provides€petitioners€with€a€reasonable€opportunity€toÏpresent€post„conviction€claims€and€thus€usually€does€not€violate€due€process,Ïapplication€of€the€statute€may€violate€due€process€if€it€bars€a€claim€that€is€based€onÏgrounds€for€relief€that€did€not€exist€when€the€limitations€period€began€to€run.€€845ÏS.W.2d€at€208.€€The€petitioner€in€òòBurfordóó€was€caught€in€a€procedural€trap.€€He€did€notÏhave€the€full€benefit€of€the€three„year€limitations€period€because€he€did€not€haveÏgrounds€for€post„conviction€relief€until€other€convictions€were€declared€void.€€By€theÏtime€the€other€convictions€were€voided,€strict€application€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102Íprovided€Burford€with€only€ten€months€to€assert€his€claim.€€Under€such€circumstances,Ïthe€court€held€that€application€of€the€statute€violated€due€process.€€òòIdóó.€at€209.ÌÌà àIn€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995),€the€court€articulated€theÏfollowing€three„step€analysis€to€determine€whether€òòBurfordóó€tolls€the€limitations€period:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€determine€when€the€limitations€period€would€normallyÏhave€begun€to€run;ÌÌà0 à(2)€determine€whether€the€grounds€for€relief€actually€arose€after€theÏlimitations€period€would€normally€have€commenced;€andÌÌà0 à(3)€if€the€grounds€are€"later€arising,"€determine€if,€under€the€facts€of€theÏcase,€a€strict€application€of€the€limitations€period€would€effectively€denyÏthe€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€present€the€claim.ÓÓÌ903€S.W.2d€at€301.€€€Applying€the€first€step€of€the€analysis,€we€note€that€because€theÏpetitioner€was€convicted€before€the€enactment€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102,€the€limitationsÏperiod€in€this€case€started€to€run€on€July€1,€1986.€€òòIdóó.;€òòAbston€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€487,Ï488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988).€€Thus,€the€second€step€of€theÏanalysis€requires€us€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner's€grounds€for€relief€arose€afterÏJuly€1,€1986.€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€the€petitioner's€alleged€grounds€for€relief€did€not€ariseÏafter€July€1,€1986.€€Unlike€the€petitioner€in€òòBurfordóó,€the€petitioner's€grounds€for€post„conviction€relief,€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€involuntary€plea,€existed€at€theÏtime€of€his€conviction.€€The€petitioner€was€not€deprived€of€the€full€limitations€periodÍbecause€he€was€caught€in€a€procedural€trap.€€To€the€contrary,€because€he€wasÏconvicted€prior€to€the€enactment€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102,€he€had€more€than€three€yearsÏto€file€his€petition.€€Ignorance€of€the€statute€of€limitations€is€not€an€excuse€for€late€filing,Ïeven€when€the€petitioner€claims€that€he€did€not€learn€of€the€statute's€enactmentÏbecause€he€was€incarcerated€in€another€state.€€òòPhillips€v.€Stateóó,€890€S.W.2d€37(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1994).€€Because€the€petitioner's€grounds€for€post„conviction€relief€existed€when€the€statute€began€to€run,€òòBurfordóó€does€not€apply€to€tollÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990).ÌÌ€à àThe€petitioner's€contention€that€application€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€deniesÏhim€equal€protection€of€the€law€is€likewise€without€merit.€€He€argues€that€prisoners€inÏcustody€in€Tennessee€were€given€notice€of€the€enactment€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€andÏthat€he€was€not€given€notice€because€he€was€in€custody€in€a€different€state.€€WeÏdisagree.€€The€petitioner€was€not€denied€notice€of€the€enactment€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€Ïmerely€because€he€was€incarcerated€in€another€state.€òòSeeóó€òòPhillipsóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€38Ï("Incarceration€in€another€state€does€not€affect€the€running€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.");€òòRaymond€Dean€Willis€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9211„CR„00359,€DavidsonÏCo.,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€21,€1993),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€Nov.€1,€1993)€(AÏpetitioner€who€had€the€full€three„year€period€to€file€a€post„conviction€petition€hasÏadequate€notice€of€the€statute's€requirements.)€€Equal€protection€requires€that€allÏpersons€be€treated€the€same€under€like€circumstances€and€conditions.€€òòGenesco,€Inc.,Ív.€Woodsóó,€578€S.W.2d€639,€641€(Tenn.€1979).€€A€petitioner€who€is€in€custody€inÏanother€state€is€treated€no€differently€under€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€than€a€petitioner€inÏcustody€in€this€state.€€Ignorance€of€the€statute€is€not€an€excuse€for€a€defendant€who€isÏincarcerated€in€Tennessee€when€the€limitations€period€runs,€just€as€it€is€not€an€excuseÏfor€the€petitioner.ÌÌà@ àò òIIó óÌà àNext,€the€petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€breached€his€pleaÏagreement€by€applying€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102.€€He€argues€that€at€the€time€he€entered€hisÏplea€agreement€he€reasonably€understood€that€he€could€file€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€at€any€time€if€he€discovered€that€his€attorney€rendered€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Based€on€contract€principles,€he€concludes€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€applying€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102.€€We€disagree.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€misunderstands€the€nature€of€his€conviction€and€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€Although€plea€agreements€between€prosecutors€and€theÏcriminally€accused€that€are€accepted€by€the€trial€court€are€treated€as€contracts,€òòseeóóÏòòState€v.€Howingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€403,€407€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Streetóó,€768€S.W.2dÏ703€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1988);€òòMetheny€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€943Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.)€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1979),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó€445€U.S.€967€(1980),€aÏjudgment€of€conviction€is€not€a€contract,€and€principles€of€contract€law€do€not€apply.€ÍMoreover,€the€post„conviction€act€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€petitioner's€conviction€didÏnot€grant€him€a€vested€right€to€bring€a€post„conviction€claim€at€anytime.€€The€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€specifies€the€procedure€for€collaterally€attacking€a€convictionÏon€constitutional€grounds.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„105€(1990).€€State€post„conviction€reliefÏprocedures€are€not€€constitutionally€mandated.€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€207Ï(citing€òòPennsylvania€v.€Finleyóó,€481€U.S.€551,€556„57,€107€S.€Ct.€1990,€1994€(1987)).€ÏHaving€provided€for€post„conviction€relief€procedures,€the€state€had€the€right€to€enact€aÏreasonable€limitations€period€for€post„conviction€claims.€€òòIdóó.€at€208.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àIn€his€third€contention,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€statute€of€limitations€Ïdid€not€begin€to€run€until€he€discovered€that€he€had€post„conviction€grounds€for€relief.€ÏHe€argues€that€when€he€entered€his€plea,€he€reasonably€believed€that€he€would€notÏhave€to€serve€any€time€in€Tennessee€if€he€completed€the€Florida€sentence.€€He€assertsÏthat€he€did€not€know€that€the€state€was€going€to€breach€the€terms€of€the€pleaÏagreement€by€failing€to€apply€all€the€credits€he€earned€in€Florida€to€his€TennesseeÏsentence€until€he€finished€his€Florida€sentence€and€was€immediately€transported€backÏto€Tennessee.€€He€argues€that€strict€application€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€is€unfairÏbecause€it€allows€the€government€to€breach€a€plea€agreement€with€impunity€after€theÏstatute€has€run.€€€ÌÌà àThis€court€rejected€a€similar€argument€in€òòHoward€Templeton€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï01C01„9406„CC„00220,€Warren€Co.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€5,€1995).€€The€petitioner€inÏòòTempletonóó€claimed€that€at€the€time€he€entered€his€plea€agreement,€his€attorneyÏadvised€him€he€would€have€to€serve€only€thirty„five€percent€of€his€ten„year€sentence.€ÏHe€argued€that€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€did€not€apply€to€his€case€because€he€did€not€learnÏthat€he€would€have€to€serve€more€than€thirty„five€percent€of€his€sentence€until€theÏParole€Board€refused€to€grant€him€parole.€€This€court€held€that€the€petitioner'sÏprofessed€lack€of€knowledge€of€his€ground€for€post„conviction€relief€did€not€toll€theÏstatute€given€the€state's€interests€in€preventing€litigation€of€stale€and€fraudulent€claimsÏand€in€insuring€administrative€efficiency€and€economy.€€Slip€op.€at€3.€€Likewise,€in€theÏpresent€case,€the€petitioner's€claimed€lack€of€knowledge€does€not€toll€the€statute€forÏpost„conviction€relief€purposes.€€Moreover,€if€the€petitioner€is€entitled€by€law€to€jailÏcredits€that€he€is€not€receiving,€he€should€proceed€under€the€AdministrativeÏProcedures€Act.€€òòSeeóó€òòJames€A.€Vaughn€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9308„CR„00258,€SumnerÏCo.€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€24,€1994).€ÌÑ€,ÑÇà@ àò òIVó óÌà àIn€his€reply€brief,€the€petitioner€contends€for€the€first€time€that€applyingÏT.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€to€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€violates€Article€I,€Section€20Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution€and€Article€I,€Section€10€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.€€He€argues€that€his€plea€agreement€is€a€contract€between€him€and€theÏstate€and€that€the€law€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€agreement€became€a€part€of€theÏcontract.€€He€concludes€that€applying€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€to€his€case€unconstitutionallyÏimpairs€the€state's€contractual€obligations€because€there€was€no€statute€of€limitationsÏfor€post„conviction€actions€at€the€time€he€made€his€plea€agreement.ÌÌà àAs€a€general€rule,€this€court€will€not€address€post„conviction€issues€thatÏwere€not€raised€in€the€petition€or€addressed€in€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€814ÏS.W.2d€45,€49€(Tenn.€1991).€€In€any€event,€we€conclude€that€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€doesÏnot€unconstitutionally€impair€the€obligations€of€contracts.€€As€previously€noted,€aÏpetitioner€can€not€use€contract€principles€to€invalidate€a€judgment€of€conviction€and€Ïthe€post„conviction€act€in€effect€at€the€time€of€the€petitioner's€conviction€did€not€grantÏhim€a€vested€right€to€bring€a€post„conviction€claim€at€anytime.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€properly€applied€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€to€bar€the€petitioner'sÏclaims€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€dismissal€of€the€petition€is€affirmed.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓòòà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌòòÌÌÌóóÇCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóPaul€G.€Summers,€Judge€