WPC <dVS@LGX|w(RDZPcb.I,&2U [P|#[4 {KW(iCZxfoY=h?`5M>N9d? 0`lu $WuR4?7 \ma豬;V',Ye6[xm:4$}ʞ_QR ,p!B3F/U[aEc*c*T T2%V"U&{;Zɍ?|O>O$ ]H\Eq._ h% r2agkR %b E_s$'( 7oH4(;.Y}h؟xؒ$Xeݽ/Q<~|)?!% imposedafterthedatethatopinionwasfiled(August14,1995)andtocasesthenintheappellate &$"& pipelineinwhichtheissuehadbeenraised.Id.HenceWalkerwouldnotapplytothedefendants ' #' 1993conviction.Rather,thedefendantsclaim,ifanyexists,mayliewithinthepurviewofthepost (#( convictionreliefact.Apanelofthiscourthasrecentlyheldthatadefendantsimilarlysituatedto )$) Echolswasnotbarredbytheoneyearpostconvictionstatuteoflimitationspursuanttothe l*%*  BurfordSandsdoctrineandthat,baseduponatheoryofwaiverofjurisdictionandtheprinciple R+&+ ofdueprocessoflaw,shewasdue postconvictionrelieffromtheexecutionofhersentence. 8,', JenniferKellyv.State,No.W199901047CCAR3C0,slipop.at710(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,  Mar.7,2000).SeeBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,208(Tenn.1992)(holdingthatincertain  situationsdueprocessprecludesthestrictapplicationofthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations); | Sandsv.State,903S.W.2d297,301(Tenn.1995)(announcingathreestepprocessforanalyzing b aBurfordclaim).Weexpressnoopinionaboutthemeritsofaclaimthedefendantmighthave H pursuanttoJenniferKelly.Wedonotevenknowthefactsofthedefendantscasebecauseno . ~ evidentiaryhearingwasheldandnoneofthepertinentfactswerebeforethiscourtonappeal.  d Nevertheless,weunderstandthedefendantsobjectiveandmakehimawareoftheholdingin  J JenniferKelly.  0    ` Thatdone,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.