WPC) U:V % 04r  0  0D  0J 0T D3s 0^ 0h 0rl 0| 0Z 0 1upU, 0dU,uU*B)DC AM7ig0v~lv B% 0@% AO&i& 0/' 0D') D/k) B),  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  U_A 3|x((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7 XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  YoakumTazewellHermanJacksboroBeatyRipleyCaldwellAbstonLoftonTipton2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  ****'dxd2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G  !  #d#    ! \RA'\#d#   "     YYY FILEDX February21,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#     \RA'\#d#   $       Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(1990)(repealed1995),provides:"Aprisonerincustodyundersentenceofacourtofthisstatemustpetitionforpostconvictionreliefunderthischapterwithinthree(3)yearsofthedateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourttowhichanappealistakenorconsiderationofsuchpetitionshallbebarred." ] !#d#     \RA'\#d#   $       Thisstatute,whichbecameeffectiveJuly1,1986,wasgivenprospectiveapplicationforthosecaseswhichwerefinalpriortoitseffectivedate.SeeStatev.St.John,751S.W.2d453,454(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1988);Abstonv.State,749S.W.2d487,488(Tenn.Crim.App.),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1988).Thus,insuchcases,petitionsforpostconvictionreliefwererequiredtobefiledwithinthreeyearsfromtheeffectivedateofJuly1,1986.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#   $       Initially,wenotethatthepostconvictioncourtrecitedinitsfindingsthat,inadditiontothisissuebeingtimebarred,noSandstromviolationoccurredinthiscase.Therecordsupportsthepostconvictioncourt'sfindingthatnoSandstromviolationoccurred.Theentirecasefile,includingjuryinstructions,wasfiledasanexhibitduringthemotionhearing.However,itwouldappearthatthepostconvictioncourt'sdispositionofthiscasewasbasedupontheState'smotiontodismissongroundsthatthepetitionwastimebarred.Accordingly,weconfineourreviewwithinthescopeoftheState'smotion.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco  d("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3Z$ `!TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT7 XXdXXd7   ($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#     \RA'\#Xd##Xd#    L"#!;+'h|` e `L@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ OCTOBERSESSION,1995 RICKYCALDWELL ,  )     ) No.03C019503CR00104 Appellant   )     ) CAMPBELLCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon. LEEASBURY ,Judge STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) (PostConviction) Appellee   )FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: MarthaYoakum    CharlesW.Burson DistrictPublicDefender   AttorneyGeneralandReporterPostOfficeBox386 Tazewell,TN37879   MichelleL.Lehmann       AssistantAttorneyGeneral CharlesHerman     CriminalJusticeDivisionAsst.PublicDefender   450JamesRobertsonParkwayPostOfficeBox337   Nashville,TN372430493  Jacksboro,TN37757        JohnBeaty     WilliamPaulPhillips  Asst.PublicDefender   DistrictAttorneyGeneral      MichaelO.Ripley (ONAPPEAL)    Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral      PostOfficeBox323      Jacksboro,TN37757OPINIONFILED:򀀀 AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes Judge@ OPINION  Theappellant,RickyCaldwell,appealsfromthesummarydismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Theappellantcontendsthatthepostconvictioncourterredinfindingthatthepetitionwasbarredbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitations. $    Thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtisaffirmed. @ FACTUALBACKGROUND  TheappellantwasconvictedbyajuryonSeptember11,1982,oftheoffensesoffirstdegreemurderandassaultwiththeintenttocommitvoluntarymanslaughter.TheconvictionswereaffirmedbythiscourtonJanuary12,1984.Statev.Caldwell,No.28(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Jan.12,1984).Nofurtherappealwastaken.TheappellantiscurrentlyservingasentenceoflifeimprisonmentwiththeTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection. OnApril28,1994,theinstantpetitionforpostconvictionreliefwasfiled.Thepetitionalleges,interalia,ineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial,unconstitutionalburdenshiftingjuryinstructions,andprosecutorialmisconduct.Thepetitionwastwiceamendedtoincludeadditionalclaimsofineffectiveassistanceoftrialcounselandachallengetothesufficiencyoftheevidence.Atthemotionhearing,thepostconvictioncourtfoundthatthelimitationsperiodontheappellant'sclaimsbegantorunonJuly1,1986.Attheconclusionofthehearing,thepostconvictioncourtgrantedtheState'smotiontodismiss,findingthatthepetitionistimebarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations. %   ׀Theappellantacknowledgesthatthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationshasrun.However,hecontendsthathisclaimsofunconstitutionaljuryinstructionsremainviableviaBrownandSandstromwhenbuttressedbyoursupremecourt'sdecisioninBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992).Theappellant'scontentionisunfounded.WeaddresstheclaimsraisedunderBrownandSandstrominturn.@ ANALYSIS  Inorderfortheappellanttoprevail,hisclaimsmustfallwithinarecognizedexceptiontotheapplicablethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.Twoexceptionstothestatuteoflimitationsareavailable.First,inBurford,oursupremecourtrecognizedthat,becauseofaproceduraltrap,"itispossiblethatunderthecircumstancesofaparticularcase,applicationofthestatutemaynotaffordareasonableopportunitytohavetheclaimedissueheardanddecided."Id.at208(citationsomitted).Additionally,thePostConvictionProcedureActprovidesasecondexceptionwhenanewconstitutionalrulehasbeencreatedorrecognized,andappliesretroactively.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030105(1990)(repealed1995). InStatev.Brown,836S.W.2d530,534(Tenn.1992),oursupremecourtheldthat"itisprudenttoabandonaninstructionthattellsthejurythatpremeditationmaybeformedinaninstant."However,thecourtdidnotfindthatthisinstructionimplicatedaconstitutionalrightornewruleoflaw.Thiscourthasrepeatedlyheldthatsuchaclaimmaynotbeusedasabasisforreliefwithinthepostconvictioncontext.See,e.g.,Loftonv.State,898S.W.2d246(Tenn.Crim.App.1994),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.1995);TimothyWaynePetersv.State,No.03C019409CR00331(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Oct.30,1995),applic.filed(Tenn.Dec.15,1995);JohnWayneSlatev.State,No.03C019201CR00014,perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.Oct.24,1994)(concurringinresultsonly).Additionally,Brownisnottobeappliedretrospectively.Peters,No.03C019409CR00331;Lofton,No.02C019310CR00242.Theappellant'sclaimunderBrowniswithoutmerit. TheappellantalsoraisesaSandstromissue.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,inSandstromv.Montana,442U.S.510,524,99S.Ct.2450,2459(1979),heldthattheuseofthewordpresumeorpresumptioninajuryinstructionwasunconstitutionalasthislanguageimproperlyshiftstheburdenofprooffromtheprosecutiontothedefendant.Inthecasesubjudice,theappellantallegesinhispetitionthatthetrialcourtinstructedthejurythat,"Ifitisshownbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheallegedvictimwaskilled,thekillingispresumedtobemaliciousintheabsenceofevidencewhichwouldrebuttheimpliedpresumption."Additionally,theappellantallegesthatthetrialcourterroneouslyinstructedthejurythatthe"useofadeadlyweapon...raisesapresumptionofmalice." &   ׀ InSandsv.State,903S.W.2d297,301(Tenn.1995),theTennesseeSupremeCourtinstitutedathreestepprocesstobeutilizedbythecourtswhenapplyingBurfordtodeterminewhetherapetitioner'sclaimforreliefistimebarred.Thethreestepprocessrequiresthereviewingcourtto:(1)determinewhenthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun;(2)determinewhetherthegroundsforreliefactuallyaroseafterthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced;and(3)ifthegroundsare"laterarising,"determineif,underthefactsofthecase,astrictapplicationofthelimitationsperiodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim.Id. Withregardtostepone,thepostconvictioncourt,inaccordancewithAbston,correctlydeterminedthatthelimitationsperiodfortheappellant,inthiscase,begantorunonJuly1,1986.Moreover,indeterminingwhenthegroundforreliefactuallyarose,wenotethatthefactualscenariosandissuesraisedinSands,i.e.Sandstrom,areanalogoustothosenowbeforeus.InSands,thesupremecourtfoundthatSandstromhadbeenretroactivelyappliedinTennesseeproceedingsforseveralyearspriortoJuly1,1986.Sands,903S.W.2dat302.Thus,thethreeyearstatutoryperiodoflimitationsbegantorunonaSandstromclaimonJuly1,1986.Id.Therefore,theSandstromclaimwasnota"laterarisingground"ascontemplatedbyBurford.Id.Accordingly,intheinstantcase,welikewiseconcludethat,becausethestatuteoflimitationsbegantorunonJuly1,1986,theappellant'sSandstromclaimbecametimebarredonJuly1,1989.@ CONCLUSION  Theappellant'sremainingclaims,althoughnotargued,areequallytimebarredforpurposesofreviewbythisCourt.Moreover,theyarewaivedforfailuretopresentthefactsrelevanttotheissues,forfailuretosetforthanargumentastotheissues,andforfailuretociteauthorityormakereferencetotherecordinsupportoftheappellant'sargument.Tenn.R.App.P.27(a)(7);Tenn.Ct.Crim.R.App.10(b). Noexceptionstotheapplicablethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsarepresentedbytheappellant'sclaims.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtdismissingthepetitionisaffirmed.     ____________________________________     DavidG.Hayes,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________________JohnH.Peay,Judge______________________________________JosephM.Tipton,Judge