WPC T9J׋uTAw^PZS <~]Ζ_'q6kÂFTS6_%#H5soC-Om `{<+0SSjqV;T(z>V=^…Ժ3 fcx:J 2~JFK èzvEdr_d^2^Ag7ŅhR.R"LV@ͬ5|<RmqgOa{?  A_r+ډiN\ag\A@0DkmWot0y_-T}Ҵ?)]ul 힌_o"WQҚ:) - 4 -rNiDAgrGV!7TeH8A%ZLnkR"ũC}I߆ ׅmB^# $UN/ %} 0(U:Lw@1 4q        Q 8$<U:``````````````` 0D D3 B AQ. 0DE 0D D/ B 0l 0DHP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial RegularC:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT DbӀ&lar3|x  \$    1     `  XThepetitionerassertsthatthiscourtshouldneverthelessaddressthepetitionersclaims,becausethesupremecourtincorrectlyinterpretedthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995.Sufficeittosaythatthiscourtisboundbythedecisionofoursupremecourt.Thompsonv.State,958  p S.W.2d156,173(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1997).  \$    1    Thepetitionerassertsthatthiscourtshouldneverthelessaddressthepetitionersclaims, `  becausethesupremecourtincorrectlyinterpretedthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995.Sufficeittosaythatthiscourtisboundbythedecisionofoursupremecourt.Thompsonv. @  State,958S.W.2d156,173(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1997).  \$    1     `  XThepetitionerassertsthatthiscourtshouldneverthelessaddressthepetitionersclaims,becausethesupremecourtincorrectlyinterpretedthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995.Sufficeittosaythatthiscourtisboundbythedecisionofoursupremecourt.Thompsonv.State,958  p S.W.2d156,173(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1997). G \$    2    TheOfficeoftheDistrictPublicDefenderquotedthechallengedinstructioninitsbrief `    onbehalfofthepetitioner,citingaportionofthetrialtranscriptnotincludedintherecord  currentlybeforethiscourt.  \$    1     `  XThepetitionerassertsthatthiscourtshouldneverthelessaddressthepetitionersclaims,becausethesupremecourtincorrectlyinterpretedthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995.Sufficeittosaythatthiscourtisboundbythedecisionofoursupremecourt.Thompsonv.State,958  p S.W.2d156,173(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1997). . \$    2    TheOfficeoftheDistrictPublicDefenderquotedthechallengedinstructioninitsbrief `  onbehalfofthepetitioner,citingaportionofthetrialtranscriptnotincludedintherecordcurrentlybeforethiscourt.  ("  XXXX'XX   Ad FILEDXX'   May26,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular(3$ !  $$$$'dxd d'(!)*C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ++' dxdP Pd((3$ !      0  (#$  0   !  ` 4X(XXXXTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T 7|XXdXXd7  r&"<,(j 8` `@E f ` ttx$X` rߛ@Q Q INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @*ATKNOXVILLE@'MARCH1999SESSION     CHARLESBOBO, <      D *   C.C.A.03C019802CR00064   Appellant, <      D *  WASHINGTONCOUNTY `  vs.   <      D *  Hon.R.JerryBeck,Judge @   STATEOFTENNESSEE,     D *   (PostConviction)    Appellee. <      D * ` ForAppellant: <      D   ForAppellee:   DeborahBlackHuskins     D   JohnKnoxWalkup  OfficeofDistrictPublicDefender   D   AttorneyGeneralandReporter  142EastMarketStreet     D   425FifthAvenueNorth  JohnsonCity,TN37601     D   Nashville,TN372430493  p CharlesBobo,#129349     D   EllenH.Pollack "P P.O.Box5000 <      D   AssistantAttorneyGeneral #@ MountainCity,TN37683     D   CriminalJusticeDivision $0    <      D   425FifthAvenueNorthJohnE.Herbison <      D   Nashville,TN372430493 p& 2016EighthAvenueSouthNashville,TN37204OPINIONFILED:򀀀 ,"% AFFIRMEDNORMAMCGEEOGLE,JUDGE  30*-S @33- OPINION  `    Thepetitioner,CharlesBobo,appealstheWashingtonCountyCriminalCourtsdismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Onappeal,thepetitioneressentiallyraisesthefollowingissuesforourconsideration:8 8 (# (#1.8< Whethertheapplicablestatuteoflimitations  barsthepetitionersclaimsthatthejuryinstructionsinhiscaseviolatedtheholdingsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinSandstromv.Montana,442U.S. @  510,99S.Ct.2450(1979),andCagev. 0  Louisiana,498U.S.39,111S.Ct.328   (1990);and <x<x 8 8 (# (#2.8< WhethertheTennesseeSupremeCourts P decisioninStatev.Brown,836S.W.2d530 @ (Tenn.1992),shouldbeappliedretroactivelytothepetitionerscase. <x<x Followingareviewoftherecordandthepartiesbriefs,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@% I.FactualBackground  #@   OnJune16,1980,thepetitionerwasconvictedintheCriminalCourtofWashingtonCountyofpremeditatedfirstdegreemurder.Thiscourtaffirmedtheappellantsconvictionandsentenceondirectappeal.Statev.Bobo,No.150(Tenn. @)" МCrim.App.atKnoxville),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1981).OnMay10,1996,  +!$ thepetitionerfiledproseapetitionforpostconvictionreliefintheCriminalCourtofWashingtonCounty.ThepostconvictioncourtappointedtheDistrictPublicDefendertorepresentthepetitioner.ThePublicDefenderfiledanamendedpetitiononDecember12,1996.OnJanuary7,1998,thepostconvictioncourtdeniedthepetitionerreliefwithoutaffordinghimanevidentiaryhearing.ThecourtconcludedthatthepetitionersclaimspursuanttoSandstrom,442U.S.at510,99S.Ct.at `6-0 2450,andCage,498U.S.at39,111S.Ct.at328,werebarredbytheapplicable @8.2 statuteoflimitations.WithrespecttothepetitionersclaimpursuanttoBrown,836 `  S.W.2dat530,thecourtconcludedthat,althoughtheissuewasnottimebarred,Browncouldnotbeappliedretroactivelytothepetitionerscaseanddidnot   implicatethepetitionersconstitutionalrights.  Onappeal,thepetitionerwasrepresentedbyanattorneyservingpursuanttoacontractwiththeDistrictPublicDefendersConference.ThepetitionersattorneysubmittedabriefpursuanttoAndersv.California,386U.S.   738,87S.Ct.1396(1967),andsimultaneouslysubmittedaMotiontoWithdrawduetothefrivolousnatureoftheappeal.ThiscourtgrantedtheMotiontoWithdrawandaccordedthepetitionertimewithinwhichtofileadditionalarguments.ThepetitionersubmittedproseanamendmenttotheAndersbrief.TheDistrictPublicDefender  forWashingtonCountyfiledanadditionalamendmenttotheAndersbrief.This  courtsstatementofthepetitionersissuesonappealencompassestheargumentsraisedinallthreebriefssubmittedonhisbehalf.@* II.Analysis  `'    ThepetitionersconvictionbecamefinalonDecember31,1981.EffectiveJuly1,1986,thelegislatureamendedthePostConvictionProcedureActof1967byenactingathreeyearstatuteoflimitationsapplicableprospectivelytopetitionsforpostconvictionrelief.Tenn.Code.Ann.4030102(1986).Priortothatdate,petitionsforpostconvictionreliefwerenotsubjecttoanystatuteoflimitations.Carterv.State,952S.W.2d417,418(Tenn.1997);Wattv.State,894 2@), S.W.2d307,308(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Thus,anypetitionerwhosejudgmentbecamefinalonorbeforeJuly1,1986,haduntilJuly1,1989,tofileapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Carter,952S.W.2dat418;Statev.Masucci,754S.W.2d90, @8.2 91(Tenn.Code.Ann.1988);Abstonv.State,749S.W.2d487,488(Tenn.Crim. `  App.1988).EffectiveMay10,1995,thelegislatureenactedthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995.The1995Actprovidedaoneyearstatuteoflimitationsforpostconvictionpetitions.Tenn.Code.Ann.430202(a)(1997).However,inCarterv.State,952S.W.2d417,418(Tenn.1997),ourssupremecourtheldthat   petitionersforwhomthestatuteoflimitationsexpiredpriortotheeffectivedateofthenewAct,i.e.,May10,1995,donothaveanadditionalyearinwhichtofilepetitionsforpostconvictionrelief.    ]#  1      כAccordingly,inthepetitionerscase,the   applicablethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsexpiredonJuly1,1989.  However,inBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,208(Tenn.1992),the   supremecourtheldthat,incertaincircumstances,dueprocessprohibitedstrictapplicationofthethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.InSandsv.State,903S.W.2d  297,301(Tenn.1995),thesupremecourtexplainedthat,inevaluatingaBurford !` claim,courtsarerequiredtoutilizeathreestepprocess:8 8 (# (#1.8< Determinewhenthelimitationsperiod %  wouldnormallyhavebeguntorun. <x<x 8 8 (# (#2.8< Determinewhetherthegroundsforrelief P(! actuallyaroseafterthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced. <x<x 8 8 (# (#3.8< Ifthegroundsarelaterarising,determineif, ,"% underthefactsofthecase,astrictapplicationofthelimitationsperiodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim. <x<x Inanycase,ifacourtsdecisionannouncedanewgroundforrelief,apetitionerwasrequiredtofilehisclaimwithinthreeyearsoftheacourtsdecision.ODonnellv. 30*- State,905S.W.2d951,953(Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Similarly,underthecurrent `  statute,acourtmayconsiderapetitionforpostconvictionreliefoutsidethestatuteoflimitationsiftheclaimisfiledwithinoneyearofacourtsrulingestablishinganewconstitutionalrightnotrecognizedatthetimeoftrial.Tenn.Code.Ann.4030202(b)(1997).SeegenerallyBlackv.State,No.03C019710CC00466,1998WL  379977,at**13(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn. `  1998).  InSands,903S.W.2dat302,oursupremecourtconcludedthata ` claimpursuanttoSandstrom,442U.S.at510;99S.Ct.at2450,wasnotalater @ arisinggroundforBurfordpurposes.Weconcludethatthepetitionerinthiscase,as   inSands,wasrequiredtoasserthisSandstromclaimpriortoJune1,1989.  Becausehedidnotdoso,hisclaimistimebarred.SeealsoMorrisv.State,No.  03C019708CR00351,1998WL389023,at*3(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,July14,1998),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1999);Pomeroyv.State,No.01C01 #@ 9610CR00424,1998WL4723,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville),perm.to %  appealdenied,(Tenn.1998). `'    WithrespecttothepetitionersclaimpursuanttoCagev.Louisiana,  +!$ 498U.S.at39,111S.Ct.at328,hehasfailedtoincludeintherecordonappealthechallengedjuryinstruction.Inanycase,thiscourthaspreviouslyquestionedwhethertheSupremeCourtsdecisioninCageestablishedanewconstitutionalrule. 0`'* Smithv.State,No.03C019312CR00393,1994WL330132,at*1(Tenn.Crim. 2@), App.atKnoxville,July1,1994)( [i]tisdoubtfulthatCagev.Louisiana...createda 4 +. newruleoflawunderBurfordandSands).SeealsoCulpv.State,02C019608 `6-0 CC00268,1997WL414397,at*3(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,July24, @8.2 1997)( [w]e...donotbelievethattheCageandVictorlineofcasesestablishesa `  newconstitutionalruleforpurposesofthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995).Inanyevent,thepetitionerfiledthepresentpetitionapproximatelysixyearsafterthedecisioninCagev.Louisiana.Thus,evenifCagecreatedanewruleof  constitutionallaw,thepetitionerhasfailedtoraisetheissueinatimelymanner.See,e.g.,Boydv.State,No.02C019512CR00392,1997WL686262,at*4(Tenn. `  Crim.App.atJackson,November5,1997),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1998); @  Statev.Johnson,No.01C019610CR00442,1997WL738586,at*8(Tenn.Crim.   App.atNashville,November25,1997),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1998). `   Finally,withrespecttothepetitionersclaimunderStatev.Brown,836   S.W.2dat530,thepetitionerhasagainfailedtoincludethechallengedinstructionintherecordbeforethiscourt. ]#  2      כInanycase,thiscourthasrepeatedlyheldthatBrown  didnotannounceanewconstitutionalprincipleandretroactiveapplicationisnotpermissible.Thompson,958S.W.2dat173;Loftenv.State,898S.W.2d246,249 #@ (Tenn.Crim.App.1994);Dyerv.State,No.03C019601CR00021,1997WL %  33623,at**34(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,January28,1997);Rinesv.State, `'  No.03C019606CC00210,1997WL33654,at*3(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,January28,1997);Drewv.State,No.02C019507CC00180,1996WL39367,at  +!$ **12(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,January31,1996);Spightv.State,No.02C01 -#& 9502CR00034,1995WL686118,at*7(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,November15,1995).Moreover,inDrew,No.02C019507CC00180,1996WL39367,at*2, 0`'* thecourtexplicitlyrejectedthepetitionerscontentionthatretroactiveapplicationofBrownshouldbeconsideredonacasebycasebasis. Thedoctrineofstaredecisis 4 +. requiresthatthis[c]ourtfollowtheunwaveringpriorprecedent.Spight,No.02C01 `  9502CR00034,1995WL686118,at*7.  Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.   <      D   򀀀 @     <      D   NormaMcGeeOgle,Judge򀀀 p МJohnH.Peay,JudgeGaryR.Wade,PresidingJudge򀀀   CorneliaA.Clark,SpecialJudge