ÿWPCÄ  # ÐUNÛ %) 0(/bWw@_4Ÿ³Â 0JÊ 0T 0^h 0hÆ 0r. 0|  0† 0¢ 1u2 0d§U> U*Iv~svÓñ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- qErstEuvEwxUyPzPäzz!Ôð Ôô3|xz2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(ArialPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€FtXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌDECEMBER€SESSION,€1996ÌÌÌÓ  ÓRONALD€L.€COX,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9508„CR„00221Ìó óà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOSEPH€B.€DAILEYó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(Habeas€Corpus)Ìó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌRONALD€COXà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌPro€Seà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌUnit€3B/Route€1ÌT.C.I.Pà àà àà àà àà àCLINTON€J.€MORGANÌOnly,€TN€€37140à àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€L.€GIBBONSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àROBERT€CARTERÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€AvenueÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÇòòò òÓ  ÓÔ€„ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€ŠÔÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àAppellant€Ronald€œL.€Cox›€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€hisÏòòproóó€òòseóó€œpetition€for€the€writ›€of€habeas€corpus.€€In€May€1995,€Appellant€filed€aÏpetition€for€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus€alleging€that€in€October€1989€he€enteredÏinto€a€plea€agreement€with€the€State€whereby€he€pled€guilty€to€two€counts€ofÏrobbery,€one€count€of€aggravated€robbery,€and€one€count€of€aggravatedÏassault€in€exchange€for€an€effective€sentence€of€ten€years,€Range€1,€at€thirtyÏpercent.€€He€alleged€that€the€State€breached€the€agreement€because€he€wasÏnot€paroled€after€having€served€thirty€percent€of€his€sentence.€€In€his€petition€forÏthe€writ€of€habeas€corpus,€Appellant€further€claimed€that€when€he€pled€guilty€heÏdid€not€understand€that€service€of€the€thirty€percent€of€his€sentence€merely€madeÏhim€eligible€for€release€but€did€not€mandate€it.€€On€June€21,€1995,€the€trial€courtÏsummarily€dismissed€Appellantððs€petition.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petitionÏstating€that€Appellant€failed€to€state€appropriate€grounds€for€either€habeasÏcorpus€relief€or€post„conviction€relief€and€that€the€petition,€treated€as€a€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€was€time„barred.€€On€appeal,€Appellant€raises€twoÏissues:€1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€his€petition€for€the€writ€ofÏhabeas€corpus,€and€2)€whether€counsel€should€have€been€appointed€and€anÏevidentiary€hearing€held€before€the€petition€was€dismissed.€€For€the€reasonsÏstated€below,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àBreach€of€a€plea€agreement€by€the€State€is€grounds€for€post„convictionÏrelief€and€has€been€recognized€as€such€in€several€of€this€Courtððs€cases.€€òòSeeóóÏòòe.g.óó€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€928€S.W.2d€453€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòTempleton€v.ÏStateóó,€1995€WL€2995,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Jan.€5,€1995).€€Moreover,ÏAppellantððs€claim€is€essentially€an€involuntary€plea€claim,€cognizable€under€theÏPost„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203€(Supp.€1996).€€AÏchallenge€to€the€validity€of€a€guilty€plea€can€be€made€only€by€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€not€by€œa€petition€for€the€writ›€of€habeas€corpus.€€òòArcher€v.ÏStateóó,€851€S.W.2d€157,€164€(Tenn.€1993).€€We€have€also€held,€at€least€byÏimplication,€that€claims€of€breached€promises€regarding€a€release€date€areÏcognizable€only€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€and€not€as€a€petitionÏfor€the€writ€of€habeas€corpus.€€òòSeeóó€òòTempletonóó,€1995€WL€2995,€at€*1.€€WhileÏAppellantððs€claim€is€cognizable€in€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€we€find,€asÏthe€trial€court€did,€that€the€claim€is€time„barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€foundÏat€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.€40„30„102€(1990).ÌÌà àAppellantððs€guilty€plea€was€entered€in€November€1989.€€Under€the€1986ÏPost„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€Appellant€had€three€years€from€this€date€withinÏwhich€to€file€a€petition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102.€€Therefore,€his€time€periodÏfor€filing€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€expired€in€November€1992.€€AppellantÍargues€that€the€statute€of€limitations€should€not€apply€to€him€because€he€did€notÏhave€grounds€for€relief€until€after€the€parole€board€denied€his€parole€at€whichÏpoint€the€limitations€period€had€expired.€€It€is€true€that€in€some€cases€dueÏprocess€prohibits€the€strict€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€period€found€inÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€40„30„105.€€In€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€SW.2dÏ204,€208€(Tenn.€1992),€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€due€processÏprohibits€the€strict€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€when€the€grounds€forÏrelief€arise€after€the€final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€anÏappeal€is€taken,€or€in€other€words,€when€the€grounds€for€relief€arise€after€theÏstatute€of€limitations€period€begins€to€run.€€However,€Appellantððs€claim€for€reliefÏexisted€from€the€time€of€his€conviction.€€This€Court€has€held€that€a€petitionerððsÏprofessed€lack€of€knowledge€that€he€had€grounds€for€relief€until€after€the€statuteÏof€limitations€had€run€is€not€ð ðlater€arisingðð€under€the€òòBurfordóó€decision€and€cannotÏdefeat€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€òòTempletonóó,€1995€WL€2995,€atÏ*1;€òòBrownóó,€928€S.W.2d€at€457.€€Finally,€the€fact€that€Appellant€filed€under€theÏamended€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€Sec.€40„30„205,Ïdoes€not€change€the€outcome.€€Petitions€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitationsÏcontained€in€the€1986€Act€may€not€be€revived€by€filing€under€the€amended€act.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòState€v.€Brummitóó,€1997€WL€106679€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€11,€œ1997),Ïòòapplicóó.€òòfiledóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€17,€1997);›€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€1997€WL€59422€(Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.€Feb.€œ12,›€1997);€òòPendleton€v.€Stateóó,€1997€WL€59501€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.ÏFeb.€œ12,›€œ1997),€òòapplicóó.€òòfiledóó€(Tenn.€Mar.€24,€1997).›Ìà àÌà àNext,€we€address€whether€it€was€proper€for€the€trial€judge€to€dismissÏAppellantððs€petition€without€appointing€counsel€and€without€conducting€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€Where€a€competently€drafted€petition€and€all€pleadings,Ïfiles,€and€records€of€a€case€conclusively€establish€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€toÏno€relief,€appointment€of€counsel€and€an€evidentiary€hearing€are€not€required.€ÏòòLane€v.€Stateóó,€906€S.W.2d€1,€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Because€AppellantððsÏpetition€was€clearly€time„barred,€the€trial€court€properly€dismissed€the€petitionÏwithout€appointing€counsel€or€conducting€an€evidentiary€hearing.ÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àœÌà àà àà àà àà à›à àœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE