WPC 6{8cEhUj=÷( owfC̝ ߴiONYϖlGӟA[\vE#3 Pv%\~:\pkfWD~7hY(QOpn# BЪI8&"k$Ӝ4T$g\ ÁbXZOyx_3Ru~fwePD /X¡iq? OAl"iT_eo CL=1~h,BC ($UVwCY/7'CuW;wIϡe2V!~34߽MJTR. 7 '^‘tX!nX?nb@MoupTBD Zkc`AOZڙwv/6`W^j_ׂ/63|pUY:1EY}a`U4@ %tbzn 0?43 U:G #!  w ^ 08 0D U:6pNr mt BDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD AQa 0x 0 0D D3<6X9`(Courier 10X- -3|x<6X9`(Courier 10Xx6X@29X@(A$  TR[A'LEGAL[A'LEGALA' LegalA' LegalT  XIXXX>>XXIMtpO'-^AZ"Arial RegularHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0\' ((3f$ A!  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XaXXX>k~=XXaM      0  (#$  0  "Arial RegularU   [A"  XaXXX>k~=XXaM  >==>k~3=>  _  Ad FILEDX!X3  October28,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr.AppellateCourt_ClerkdA _ dZ[\]_C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3A$ A!  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XaXXX>k~=XXaM  (3A$ A!  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XaXXX>k~=XXaM  ($$   1  'dxd A!  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XaXXX>k~=XXaM  _  Xp=>k~+p8!XXdd8_vY_@0,j:`  `@E` ttxR v__@ D >=+X!X=>INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @rr)DATNASHVILLEo[X` hDp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?ACXoDEWAYNEGENTRY, h    D ) *[  `     h    D ) p C.C.A.NO.01C019904CC00117  :   ` Appellant,   h    D ) p (No.F29392Below)   `     h    D ) p RUTHERFORDCOUNTY    VS. `     h    D )     `     h    D ) p TheHon.JamesK.Clayton,Jr.    STATEOFTENNESSEE, h    D ) d    `     h    D )  p (DismissalofPostConvictionPetition)  C t   ` Appellee.   h    D ) "S   `     h    D ) p AFFIRMEDPURSUANTTORULE20 2  M@kk+DORDER  }  `  ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponthestatesmotionrequestingthatthejudgmentintheabovestyledcausebeaffirmedpursuanttoRule20,TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRules.Havingreviewedthestatesmotion,thepetitionersbrief,andtherecordonappeal,wefindthatthemotioniswelltaken. `  ItappearsthatthepetitionerpledguiltytoaggravatedrapeandwassentencedasamitigatedoffenderonSeptember7,1994,tothirteenyears,sixmonthsintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.ThepetitionerfiledhispostconvictionpetitiononJanuary29,1999,andthetrialcourtdismissedthepetitionasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations. `  PriortoMay10,1995,thestatuteoflimitationsforpost-convictionpetitionswasthreeyears.T.C.A.40-30-102(repealed1995).OnMay10,1995,thelimitationsperiodwasshortenedtooneyear.T.C.A.40-30-202(a)andCompiler'sNotesto40-30-201.BecausethepreviousthreeyearstatuteoflimitationshadnotexpiredasofMay10,1995,thepetitioner'srighttopetitionforpost-convictionreliefsurvivedunderthenewAct.Carterv.State,952S.W.2d417,420(Tenn.1997).Thus,thepetitionerhadone 1O.6 yearfromMay10,1995,inwhichtofileapetitionforpost-convictionrelief,oruntilMay1996.HispetitionwasnotfileduntilJanuary1999.Therefore,thecourtbelowwascorrectinconcludingthatthepetitionersclaimforreliefwastime-barredbythestatuteoflimitations. `  UnderT.C.A.4030202(b),theonlyexceptionstotheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsare:(1)theclaiminthepetitionisbaseduponafinalrulingofanappellatecourt =4:D establishingaconstitutionalrightthatwasnotrecognizedasexistingatthetimeoftrial,if  retrospectiveapplicationofthatrightisrequired;(2)theclaiminthepetitionisbasedupon  newscientificevidenceestablishingthatsuchpetitionerisactuallyinnocentoftheoffense 5f oroffensesforwhichthepetitionerwasconvicted;or(3)theclaiminthepetitionseeks  relieffromasentencethatwasenhancedbecauseofapreviousconvictionandsuch   convictioninthecaseinwhichtheclaimisassertedwasnotaguiltypleawithanagreed N   sentence,andthepreviousconvictionhassubsequentlybeenheldtobeinvalid.  2   `  Inthepresentcase,thepetitionerfailedtoshowthathisclaimfallwithinone g  oftheexceptionssetforthinT.C.A.4030202(b).Instead,thepetitionersubmitsthat K hispleawasnotintelligently,knowingly,andvoluntarilyenteredbecausehisattorney,the  districtattorneygeneral,andthetrialjudgefailedtoinformhimthathewouldnotbe  automaticallyreleasedafterserving20%ofhissentence,butratherthathewouldbe 3d merelyeligibleforparoleatthattime.   `  Thestatuteclearlystatesthattheoneyearlimitationsperiodshallnotbe L} tolledforanyreason,includinganytollingorsavingprovisionotherwiseavailableatlaw 0  orequity.T.C.A.4030202(a).Moreover,applicationofthestatuteoflimitationsinthis " instancedoesnotviolatedueprocessprinciples.InBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,208 e!$ (Tenn.1992),ourSupremeCourtheldthatincertainsituationsapplicationofthestatute #I & oflimitationsinapost-convictionproceedingmightviolateconstitutionaldueprocess.In $!( determiningwhethertherehasbeensuchaviolation,theessentialquestioniswhetherthe ~&#* timeperiodallowedbylawprovidesthepetitionerafairandreasonableopportunitytofile 1(b%, suit.Id.InBurford,theSupremeCourtheldthatthepetitionerwas"caughtinaprocedural )'. trapandunabletoinitiatelitigation...despitetheapproachofthethree-yearlimitation." +(0 Id.Nosuchtrapexistshere. J-{*2  `  Inthealternative,thepetitionercontendsthattheoneyearstatuteof 0-6 limitationsisunconstitutional.ThisCourthaspreviouslyrejectedasimilarclaim,see c2/8 Carothersv.State,980S.W.2d215,21718(Tenn.Crim.App.1997),andwedeclinethe 4G1: invitationtorevisittheissue. 52<  `  ITIS,THEREFORE,ORDEREDthatthestatesmotiontoaffirmthejudgment /9`6@ ofthetrialcourtunderRule20,TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRules,isgranted, :8B andthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Itappearingthatthepetitionerisindigent,  costsoftheseproceedingsaretaxedtothestate.  M `     h    D  p _____________________________ ?  `     h    D  p JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGE  CONCUR: r   _____________________________  .  JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE    _____________________________ a  THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE#>: =XXS# :k  `     h    D  p      x