ÿWPCŽ+ ?U .‚ %°b¶ºn­Ê 0 (wU:Ÿw@Ù4 0¥- 0DÒU: 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- 0@‘ D3Ñ B ! AQ) Æz 0D@ 0D„ D/È B÷ U * B)> DCg AMª ÷ fú‹`´ë Ÿ[¿?ûYéT!v~=$vÓ»%<þ6X9`(CourierX ù3|xí«<þ6X9`(CourierXôxþ6X@ɹ`7ûX@($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular ×EØÙÚÛEÜÝDÞÓ€êíäzz!(U(2‡t$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÔ€XøoXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 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("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd* 2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ùÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òJune€09,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ !ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAccording€to€the€federal€presentence€report€in€the€record,€not€all€of€theÏpetitioner's€Tennessee€convictions€were€assigned€"points"€under€the€federalÏsentencing€guidelines.Ì ªÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOnly€a€violation€of€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€constitutions€is€aÏproper€basis€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòHousler€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€758,€761Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€€In€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238,€89€S.€Ct.€1709Ï(1969),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€Constitution€requires€that€defendantsÏbe€advised€prior€to€the€acceptance€of€guilty€pleas€of€their€constitutional€rights,Ïincluding€the€right€not€to€give€self„incriminating€statements.€€Tennessee€hasÏexpanded€on€the€òòBoykinóó€litany€to€be€given€to€defendants€in€this€state.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1984);€òòMackey€v.€Stateóó,€553€S.W.2d€337Ï(Tenn.€1977).€€In€òòMcClintockóó,€theÏsupreme€court€said€a€defendant€has€the€right€to€be€informed€of€theÏenhancement€possibilities€of€his€or€her€plea€to€a€Tennessee€offense.€€TheÏabsence€of€the€additional€òòMcClintockóó€admonishment,€however,€does€not€affectÏthe€constitutionality€of€the€plea€under€òòBoykinóó.€€òòBlankenship€v.€Stateóó,€858€S.W.2dÏ897,€905€(Tenn.€1993).€€Therefore,€the€only€potentially€viable€issue€in€this€post„conviction€proceeding€is€the€alleged€absence€of€the€admonishment€theÏappellant€was€privileged€not€to€give€incriminatory€statements€against€himself.€Ì Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€post„conviction€court€was€unable€to€determine€which€convictionsÏwere€challenged,€and€it€relied€upon€two€convictions€the€appellant€received€onÏOctober€1,€1992€in€dismissing€the€appellant's€claim€as€time„barred.€€TheÏpetitioner€listed€15€convictions€in€his€petition€relating€to€offenses€occurring€in€orÏbefore€1989.€€According€to€the€federal€presentence€report,€the€dates€of€theÏconvictions€for€those€offenses€are€May€31,€1977,€October€21,€1977,€January€24,Ï1978,€August€4,€1982,€December€28,€1984,€March€2,€1985,€November€18,€1985Ïand€December€8,€1989.€€(Multiple€convictions€were€rendered€on€many€of€theseÏdates).€€We€interpret€the€petition€to€challenge€the€fifteen€prior€convictions,€notÏthe€two€subsequent€convictions.€€In€his€reply€brief,€the€appellant€ambiguouslyÏinvites€this€court€to€consider€the€two€subsequent€convictions,€as€well.€Ì QÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€previously€noted€by€this€court,€July€1,€1989€was€a€Saturday;Ïtherefore,€€post„conviction€claims€existing€prior€to€the€July€1,€1986€effective€dateÏof€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€were€barred€if€not€filed€the€followingÏMonday,€July€3,€1989.€€òòStephen€L.€Carey€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9309„CR„00330Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€8,€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).Ì 5Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€noted€above,€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€for€post„convictionÏclaims€took€effect€on€May€10,€1995.Ì ñÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€mistakenly€seeks€to€avail€himself€of€the€benefit€of€CodeÏsection€40„3„206(g)(2),€which€provides€that€a€claim€is€not€waived€if€the€failure€toÏpresent€it€was€the€result€of€state€action€in€violation€of€the€state€or€federalÏconstitution.€€This€provision€is€applicable€to€a€claim€that€otherwise€has€beenÏwaived€by€failure€to€present€it€in€earlier€proceedings,€i.e.€on€direct€appeal€or€in€aÏprior€post„conviction€proceeding,€not€a€claim€which€his€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)€(Supp.€1996).Ì ßÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$ÝÓ  ÓÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÔ€0Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€relevant€portion€of€the€petitioner's€reply€brief€readsÌÌÒ ` ÒÒ  ÒIt€must€be€noted€that€appellant's€October€1,€1992€convictions€wereÏnot€used€by€the€federal€government€to€enhance€or€increase€hisÏpunishment€on€the€federal€offense.€€However,€since€theseÏconviction€[sic]€may€be€used€upon€resentencing€after€theÏchallenged€convictions€are€expunged€there€[sic]€constitutionalityÏshould€also€be€consider€[sic]€under€the€present€claims€that€òòare€notóóÏcontested€herein.ÌÌÒ  ÒÒ ° Ò(emphasis€in€original).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ r  XdðdÈ7ÑÔ€0Ô›Þ ÞÌÌÑ€Ñò òà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ*ÙßR€342A1-j|Ðÿ` Å `€€@ÿRߛ̀à@ àAT€JACKSONÌó óÌà@ àMARCH€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌò òFREDDIE€LEE€MANS,à àà àà àó ó)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant,à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€No.€02C01„9605„CR„00147Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìvs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àShelby€Countyà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà àà àà à)à àHon.€W.€Fred€Axley,€JudgeÏà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 à)à0 àÌà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌFREDDIE€LEE€MANSà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌPro€Seà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌF.C.I.€Memphis€ÌP.O.€Box€34550€(Tennessee)ÌMemphis,€TN€€38184„0550à àà àà àSARAH€M.€BRANCHÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€ALANDA€HORNEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€PoplarÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌOPINION€FILED:€____________________ÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMED€AS€MODIFIEDÌÌó óÌCURWOOD€WITT€ÌJUDGEÑ€5ÑÇÑ7€bYXXdð Xdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÑ7€ r  XXdðXXdð7Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÓÓÌà àà àThe€petitioner,€Freddie€Lee€Mans,€appeals€the€Shelby€CountyÏCriminal€Court's€summary€dismissal€of€his€post„conviction€petition.€€TheÏappellant€is€currently€incarcerated€for€a€conviction€received€in€federal€court,€andÏhe€contends€his€federal€sentence€was€enhanced€in€part€based€uponÏunconstitutional€prior€convictions€in€the€state€courts€of€Tennessee.€€His€post„conviction€petition€challenges€those€prior€Tennessee€convictions.€€Upon€reviewÏof€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below,€although€we€do€so€onÏdifferent€grounds.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€is€presently€serving€a€240„month€sentence€in€theÏFederal€Correctional€Institution€in€Memphis€for€a€narcotics€conviction€heÏreceived€in€the€Federal€District€Court€for€the€Western€District€of€Tennessee.€€HeÏhas€a€lengthy€history€in€the€State€of€Tennessee's€criminal€justice€system.€€It€isÏrelevant€for€purposes€of€this€appeal€that€his€federal€presentence€report€reflectsÏ15€prior€convictions€in€the€courts€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€The€length€of€theÏpetitioner's€federal€sentence€was€enhanced,€in€part,€due€to€the€prior€TennesseeÏconvictions.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€œIn›€his€post„conviction€petition€filed€on€March€5,€1996€in€theÏCriminal€Court€of€Shelby€County,€he€attacks€the€constitutionality€of€theÍenhancing€Tennessee€convictions,€alleging€he€was€not€advised€prior€to€hisÏguilty€pleas€(which€apparently€formed€the€predicate€for€his€TennesseeÏconvictions)€of€his€right€against€self„incrimination€and€that€these€convictionsÏmight€be€used€to€enhance€his€sentence€for€any€subsequent€conviction.× ƒ7 ××  ×€TheÏcourt€below€found€without€a€hearing€that€the€petitioner's€claim€was€barred€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€The€petitioner€is€before€us€in€his€appeal€of€that€decision.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€post„conviction€petition€challenges€fifteenÏconvictions€received€between€May€31,€1977€and€December€8,€1989.€Ostensibly,Ïthe€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€is€applicable€to€all€claims€filed€afterÏMay€10,€1995.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„30„201€through€„222Ï(Supp.€1996).€That€legislation€provides€that€an€individual€must€file€for€post„conviction€relief€"within€one€(1)€year€of€the€date€on€which€the€judgment€becameÏfinal,€or€consideration€of€such€petition€shall€be€barred."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€Act€also€provides,€"notwithstanding€any€otherÏprovision€of€this€part€to€the€contrary,€any€person€having€ground€for€reliefÏrecognized€under€this€part€shall€have€at€least€one€(1)€year€from€May€10,€1995,€toÏfile€a€petition€or€a€motion€to€reopen€a€petition€under€this€part."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€40„30„201,€Compiler's€Notes€(Supp.€1996).€€ÌÌà àà àPrior€to€the€enactment€of€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,Ïpost„conviction€petitions€had€to€be€filed€within€(a)€three€years€of€the€date€of€theÏfinal€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€was€taken,€orÏ(b)€three€years€from€July€1,€1986,€the€effective€date€of€the€statute.€€Tenn.€CodeÍAnn.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990)€(repealed€1995);€òòState€v.€Mullinsóó,€767€S.W.2d€668,Ï669€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€An€exception€applied,€however,€to€preserve€theÏright€of€a€post„conviction€petitioner€to€mount€an€otherwise€untimely€challengeÏwhere€strict€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€would€deprive€the€petitionerÏof€due€process€of€law.€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€makes€several€alternative€arguments€why€he€shouldÏnot€be€barred€by€the€three€year€statute€of€limitations€and€why€his€claim€is€withinÏthe€one€year€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àà àFirst,€he€contends€his€petition€should€not€have€been€dismissed€asÏuntimely€because€some€of€the€Tennessee€offenses€were€committed€prior€to€theÏenactment€of€the€three€year€statute€of€limitations,€and€application€of€that€statuteÏof€limitations€is€an€òòex€post€factoóó€infringement€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€WeÏdisagree.€€This€court€has€addressed€this€issue€on€several€occasions€and€foundÏno€òòex€post€factoóó€violation€in€limiting€the€period€of€time€within€which€a€post„conviction€challenge€may€be€made€even€though€the€conviction€predates€theÏenactment€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Richard€S.€Butleróó,€No.Ï1338€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€19,€œ1992);€€òòBobby€Silas›€Robinson€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€87„69„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€6,€1988).ÌÌà àà àAlternatively,€the€petitioner€argues€òòBurfordóó€provides€an€exceptionÏto€the€three€year€statute€of€limitations€which€allows€him€to€institute€a€proceedingÏto€attack€his€Tennessee€convictions,€notwithstanding€the€three€year€limitation.€ÏAgain,€we€disagree.€€òòBurfordóó€was€a€unique€case€in€which€the€petitioner€wasÏcaught€in€a€procedural€trap€in€which€he€first€had€to€successfully€challengeÏconvictions€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding€in€one€county€in€order€to€have€aÏjusticiable€claim€for€relief€in€post„conviction€proceedings€in€another€county.€ÏòòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208.€€He€was€caught€in€a€quandary€because€theÏapproach€of€the€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€the€latter€claim€was€loomingÏprior€to€a€determination€of€the€former€claim.€€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208.€€TheÏsupreme€court€found€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€to€the€latterÏclaim€violative€of€due€process€in€that€limited€circumstance€and€allowed€theÏòòBurfordóó€petitioner€to€maintain€his€claim€notwithstanding€the€statute€of€limitations.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€209„10.€€òòBurfordóó€did€not,€however,€give€post„conviction€petitioners€the€right€to€wage€collateral€attack€on€stale€convictionsÏthemselves€outside€the€statute€of€limitations.€€To€be€sure,€the€petitioner€inÏòòBurfordóó€filed€his€attack€on€his€enhancing€convictions€within€the€time€thenÏallowed€under€the€Act.€€òòSee€generallyóó€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€204.€€Unlike€òòBurfordóó,Ïthe€petitioner€herein€seeks€to€challenge€not€his€enhanced€federal€sentence,Íover€which€this€court€has€no€jurisdiction,€but€his€enhancing€TennesseeÏconvictions.€€In€this€situation,€the€òòBurfordóó€exception€is€inapplicable.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€next€alternative,€the€petitioner€argues€his€claims€should€notÏbe€barred€by€the€three€year€statute€of€limitations€which€otherwise€barred€hisÏclaims€on€July€3,€1989× ƒ9 ××  ×€as€to€all€of€his€convictions€received€on€or€before€July€1,Ï1986,€and€three€years€from€the€date€of€conviction€on€all€convictions€receivedÏafter€July€1,€1986€through€May€9,€1995,× ƒ: ××  ×€because€the€federal€facility€in€which€heÏis€incarcerated€does€not€have€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€available€for€use€byÏprisoners.× ƒ; ××  ×€€Although€it€is€not€entirely€clear,€it€appears€from€the€record€that€theÍappellant€has€been€in€federal€custody€since€July€28,€1990.€€The€record€does€notÏreflect€whether€all€of€this€detention€and€incarceration€has€been€at€the€FederalÏCorrectional€Institute€in€Memphis,€where€the€appellant€alleges€he€does€not€haveÏaccess€to€Tennessee€law€materials.€We€are€not€persuaded€by€the€petitioner'sÏargument.€€These€facts€do€not€fit€within€any€of€the€exceptions€for€untimely€filingÏunder€Code€section€40„30„202(b).€€ÌÌà àà àWe€note€parenthetically€that€the€petitioner€makes€no€allegationÏwith€respect€to€his€access€to€legal€materials€from€the€dates€of€his€guilty€pleas€forÏthe€prior€Tennessee€offenses,€until€July€28,€1990,€the€date€he€came€into€federalÏcustody.€€òòSeeóó€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995)€(petitioner€who€didÏnot€have€access€to€law€library€while€incarcerated€in€Florida€failed€to€show€he€didÏnot€have€an€opportunity€to€present€his€claim€where€it€was€not€based€on€"laterÏarising€ground");€òòPaul€R.€Spence€v.€Stateóó,€No.€968€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,ÏNov.€3,€1991),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1992)€(petitioner€incarcerated€inÏanother€state€who€did€not€have€access€to€Tennessee€legal€materials€not€entitledÏto€file€untimely€post„conviction€petition).€€Moreover,€he€makes€no€explanation€ofÏhis€failure€for€periods€of€up€to€18€years€to€pursue€post„conviction€relief.€òòCfóó.ÏòòThomas€L.€Mills€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9505„CR„00137€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€Jan.€31,€1996)€(petitioner€who€claimed€ignorance€of€post„convictionÍstatute€of€limitations€not€entitled€to€file€untimely€claim).€€Accordingly,€we€fail€toÏfind€merit€in€this€argument.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€urges€the€court€that€his€claims€are€not€barredÏbecause€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,€778€S.W.2d€34€(Tenn.€1989)€and€òòState€v.€Frazieróó,Ï784€S.W.2d€927€(Tenn.€1990)€clarified€relevant€existing€law,€and€his€statute€ofÏlimitations€should€be€computed€from€the€dates€of€release€of€those€opinions.€ÏThis€argument€is€without€merit.€€These€cases€announced€no€new€constitutionalÏrights€which€required€retrospective€application.€€Moreover,€the€petition€was€filedÏsix€and€five€years,€respectively,€after€these€decisions.€€Even€under€the€old€act,Ïthis€filing€was€outside€the€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€next€argument€is€that€the€statute€of€limitationsÏcannot€apply€to€him€because€he€is€a€federal€prisoner.€€This€contention€is€withoutÏmerit.€€òòPassarella€v.€Stateóó,€891€S.W.2d€619,€622„23€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994);Ïòòaccordóó€òòPhillip€Woody€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„92„11„CR„00396€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€July€29,€1993)€(statute€of€limitations€barred€federal€prisoner'sÏchallenge€to€Tennessee€convictions€used€to€enhance€federal€sentence).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€posits€that€even€if€his€claim€is€barred€by€theÍformer€three€year€statute€of€limitations,€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€ActÏrevives€his€right€to€file€a€post„conviction€petition€within€one€year€of€that€statute'sÏeffective€date.€€In€òòArnold€Carter€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9509„CC„00270€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€11,€1996),€òòperm.€app.€grantedóó€(Tenn.€Dec.€12,€1996),Ïthis€court€held€that€the€new€Act€provided€such€a€window€in€which€any€petitionerÏcould€seek€post„conviction€relief€even€if€that€petition€had€previously€been€barredÏby€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Judge€David€Welles€filed€a€strong€dissentingÏopinion.€€The€reasoning€of€that€dissent€has€formed€the€basis€for€every€decisionÏsince€written.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòJohnny€Tillman€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9512„CR„00413Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Feb.€12,€1997),€òòpetition€for€perm.€app.€filedóó€(Tenn.ÏFeb.€18,€1997);€òòDoyle€Carter€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9511„CC„00398€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Nashville,€Feb.€12,€1997).€€The€new€Act€was€not€meant€to€reviveÏpreviously€barred€claims.ÌÌà àà àAdditionally,€the€petitioner€argues€that€his€claim€was€not€restrictedÏby€a€statute€of€limitations€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€1995€Act€because€formerÏCode€section€40„30„102€applied€only€to€claims€where€an€appeal€was€taken€toÏthe€highest€state€appellate€court,€not€where€the€conviction€followed€a€guilty€plea.€ÏThis€contention€is€wholly€without€merit.€€This€court€has€routinely€found€theÏstatute€of€limitations€on€a€post„conviction€claim€arising€from€a€proceeding€inÍwhich€a€guilty€plea€was€entered€to€commence€on€the€date€the€judgment€ofÏconviction€was€entered.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòSharon€Ann€Conner€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9509„CC„00279€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€3,€1996);€òòVernon€WayneÏMauldin€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9411„CR„00408€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€MayÏ25,€1995);€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€has€not€asserted€any€grounds€for€allowing€untimelyÏconsideration€of€his€petition€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„202(b).€€Thus,€the€three€year€statute€of€limitations€applicable€to€the€petitioner'sÏclaims€under€the€old€Act€expired€on€December€8,€1992€and€July€3,€1989.€€HisÏclaims€are€now€barred.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€in€his€reply€brief,€the€petitioner€has€equivocally€raised€theÏconstitutionality€of€his€two€Tennessee€convictions€received€after€his€federalÏsentencing.× ƒ< ××  ×€€Obviously,€these€convictions€were€not€used€to€enhance€hisÍsentence.€€These€convictions€were€not€among€the€15€listed€in€the€post„conviction€petition;€however,€the€court€below€used€them€as€the€basis€forÏdismissing€the€petition€as€outside€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€petitionerÏcandidly€admits€these€convictions€were€not€challenged€in€the€petition.ÌÌà àà àCode€section€40„30„206(b)€commands€that€the€trial€court€shallÏenter€an€order€summarily€dismissing€the€petition€without€the€appointment€ofÏcounsel€or€a€hearing€"if€it€plainly€appears€from€the€face€of€the€petition€and€anyÏannexed€exhibits€or€the€prior€proceedings€in€the€case"€that€the€petition€was€notÏfiled€within€the€statute€of€limitations.€€In€this€case,€it€"plainly€appears"€that€theÏ1992€state€convictions€were€not€challenged€in€the€petition€or€theÏcontemporaneously€filed€memorandum€of€law.€€The€lower€court's€inclusion€ofÏthe€1992€state€convictions€was€misplaced.€€There€was€no€basis€for€enunciatingÏas€to€these€1992€state€convictions.€€We€agree,€however,€with€the€resultÏultimately€reached€by€the€trial€court,€although€the€proper€ground€for€the€trialÏcourt's€determination€is€the€untimeliness€of€the€petition€in€challenging€the€1977Ïthrough€1989€convictions.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€must€be€modified€toÏdelete€findings€and€pronouncements€relative€to€the€1992€state€court€convictions.ÌÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed,€as€modified.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌœ_________________________________›ÌJOSEPH€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌœòò(NOT€PARTICIPATING)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó›ÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGE