ÿWPC» …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ w 0J 0Tf 0^º 0h 0r€ 0|ò 0†n 0ô 1u„ U,ù 0d% U,‰ U>µ B)ó DC AM_U*¬Ö Bñv~vÓŒ D3_ 0@’ AOÒÆ! 0Dç 0D+ D/o Bž˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡»\2 3|xroVpîq£rD2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òJanuary€31,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú2Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÙ€€ÙÓ  ÓÓÓò òÑ\R AØ'\ÑòŒòßL€"$!;+'h|±` Å `€€LßIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€JACKSONÌJUNE€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà àà àóŒó)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà à)€€C.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9503„CC„00069Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à€€€€€€à à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€Madison€CountyÏCircuit€Court€No.C„92„198Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)ÌV.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ï)€€Honorable€Whit€Lafon,€JudgeÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)ÌòŒòROBERT€JOHNSON,€JR.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óŒóà à)òŒòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óŒóà à)€€(Aggravated€Rape€andÏIncest)Ìà àAppellant.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌÌJAMES€D.€GASSà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAttorney€at€Law€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ203€South€Shannon,€Suite€100à àà àà àÌJackson,€Tennessee€38301ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEllen€H.€PollackÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0485ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€W.€ThompsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à225€Martin€Luther€King€DriveÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJackson,€Tennessee€38301ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€___________________________ÌÌÌòŒòAFFIRMEDóŒóÌÌÌòŒòMARY€BETH€LEIBOWITZ,óŒóÌSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÌó óà àThis€is€an€appeal€of€€right€by€Robert€Johnson€Jr.,€by€and€through€counsel,€affirming€theÏjudgment€of€the€Madison€County€Criminal€Court€which€dismissed€his€Petition€for€Post„ConvictionÏRelief.€€Following€a€jury€trial€Mr.€Johnson€was€convicted€on€May€14,€1985€of€aggravated€rape€andÏincest.€His€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€was€denied€on€March€19,€1986,€and€hisÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court€was€denied€on€June€2,€1986.€€TheÏPetitioner€filed€his€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€Relief€on€July€14,€1992,€alleging€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€should€be€waived€and€that€he€should€be€allowed€to€pursue€his€post„conviction€petition,Ïbecause€his€trial€and€appellant€counsel€failed€to€inform€him€that€his€appeal€was€concluded.€€WeÏagree€with€the€trial€court€€that€this€petition€is€time€barred€and€affirm€its€finding.Ìà àThe€Petitioner€has€claimed€that€he€was€not€notified€of€any€action€by€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€or€the€State€Supreme€Court€following€his€conviction,€but€that€he€had€been€notified€that€hisÏattorney€would€appeal.€€In€the€proof€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€he€testified€that€sometime€inÏ1991,€he€asked€a€jailhouse€lawyer€to€file€the€instant€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€and€wasÏasked€what€had€happened€to€his€appeal.€€He€testified€that€he€had€never€heard€from€his€attorneyÏabout€his€appeal€and€his€attorney€testified€that€he€had€no€knowledge€of€notifying€the€appellantÏbecause€he€did€not€have€an€address.€€The€State€of€course€urges€that€the€effective€assistance€of€trialÏcounsel€issue€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€€T.C.A.€40„30„102,€under€the€1986€act,€says;€ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  Ò"A€prisoner€in€custody€under€sentence€of€a€Court€of€this€State€mustÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€under€this€chapter€within€three€(3)Ïyears€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€of€the€highest€State€AppellateÏCourt€to€which€an€appeal€is€taken€or€consideration€of€such€petitionÏshall€be€barred."ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓà àBoth€sides€cite€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2nd€204€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€that€case€an€habitualÏcriminal€who€had€been€sentenced€in€1985,€in€part,€on€prior€convictions,€was€allowed€to€file€a€post„conviction€petition€outside€the€three€(3)€year€statutory€period€after€some€of€his€prior€convictionsÏwere€invalidated.€€In€this€case€there€are€no€prior€convictions,€and€the€issue€strictly€applies€to€theÏdefendant's€appeal.€€In€òòMullins€v.€Stateóó,€767€S.W.€2nd€668€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€theÏpetitioner€was€not€outside€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Ìà àThe€State€has€cited€òòSam€John€Passarella€v.€Stateóó,€Davidson€County,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9402„CR„00035,€Opinion€filed€July€28,€1984.€€In€that€case€the€petitioner€filed€his€petition€severalÏyears€after€the€statutory€filing€period€had€tolled.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€found€that,€Ïalthough€the€appellant€argued€that€the€statute€of€limitations€should€commence€on€the€date€he€wasÍadvised€by€his€attorney€that€he€had€grounds€to€file,€a€considerable€period€of€time€after€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€had€run.€€It€found€that€the€statute€of€limitations€did€not€include€a€discovery€rule,€and€thatÏa€discovery€rule€could€not€be€engrafted€upon€the€statute€of€limitations€in€post„conviction€cases.€€InÏòòDarrell€Eugne€Warren€v.€Stateóó,€Knox€County€No.€03„C„01„9210„CR„00372€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,Knoxville,€Aug.€17,€1993),€òòper.€app.€denied.óó€February€14,€1994,€the€Court€said:ÌÒ ¸ ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThis€court€rejected€the€argument€that€the€post„conviction€statute€ofÏlimitations€should€begin€to€run€when€a€petitioner€"learned"€thatÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€had€been€denied€by€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€In€this€case,€the€appellant€urges€us€toÏfind€that€the€statute€begins€to€run€when€a€petitioner€learns€that€certainÏconstitutional€violations€have€occurred.€€We€cannot€engraft€thisÏdiscovery€rule€upon€the€statute€of€limitations€which€is€purelyÏstatutory€and€which€is€unambiguous€about€its€accrual.ÌÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àThus€the€Petition€for€Post„Conviction€Relief€as€to€the€appellant€Robert€Johnson,€Jr.€is€timeÏbarred,€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMARY€BETH€LEIBOWITZ,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌ