WPC% U:V % 04r  0  0D 0J D3C 0Tv 0^ 0h( 0r 0| 0~ 0 1uU,  0d5U,U*B)DC AM[@v~vv B! 0@! AO$"s" 09# 0D1% D/u% B%,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  c`3|x((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7|XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  ****'dxd2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G  !  #d#    ! \RA'\#d#   "     YYY FILEDX January31,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk  6 !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7|XXdd7     Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(1990)(repealed1995),provides:"Aprisonerincustodyundersentenceofacourtofthisstatemustpetitionforpostconvictionreliefunderthischapterwithinthree(3)yearsofthedateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourttowhichanappealistakenorconsiderationofsuchpetitionshallbebarred."  !#d#     \RA'\#d#   $       Theappellant'spetitionwasrequiredtobefiledwithinthreeyearsofthedateonwhichhisconvictionbecamefinal.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102.HisconvictionbecamefinalonMarch3,1986.However,Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102,whichbecameeffectiveJuly1,1986,wasgivenprospectiveapplicationforcaseswhichwerefinalpriortoitseffectivedate.Abstonv.State,749S.W.2d487,488(Tenn.Crim.App.),permtoappealdenied,(Tenn.1988).Thus,intheinstantcase,thestatuteoflimitationsontheappellant'sclaimsbegantorunonJuly1,1986.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco  d("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3[$ `!TR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT7|XXdXXd7   ($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#     \RA'\#Xd##Xd#    L!" ;+'h|` e `L@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ DECEMBERSESSION,1995 THOMASL.MILLS ,  )     ) No.03C019505CR00137 Appellant   )     ) HAMILTONCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon. DOUGLASA.MEYER ,Judge STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) (PostConviction) Appellee   )FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: RobertN.Meeks,P.C.   CharlesW.Burson ParklonBuilding,SuiteSix  AttorneyGeneralandReporter4548BrainerdRoad Chattanooga,TN37411   MichelleL.Lehmann       AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493                WilliamH.CoxIII       DistrictAttorneyGeneral      YolandMitchell       Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral      City/CountyCourtsBuilding      Chattanooga,TN37402OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes Judge@ OPINION  Theappellant,ThomasL.Mills,appealsasofrightfromthedismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Theappellantcontendsthatthepostconvictioncourterredinfindingthatthepetitionwasbarredbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitations. #   ׀ Thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtisaffirmed.@ FACTUALBACKGROUND  OnMarch5,1985,theappellantpledguiltytoarmedrobberyintheCriminalCourtofHamiltonCounty.OnApril17,1985,followingasentencinghearing,theappellantwassentencedtotwentyfiveyearsinthestatepenitentiary.TheconvictionwasaffirmedbythiscourtonDecember19,1985.Statev.Mills,No.936(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Dec.19,1985).PermissiontoappealwasdeniedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtonMarch3,1986. OnOctober3,1994,theappellantfiledtheinstantpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Theinitialpetition,filedprose,wastwiceamendedaftertheappellantwasprovidedappointedcounsel.Theprosepetitionallegesthattheprosecutorandtheappellant'sattorneyliedtotheappellantathisguiltypleahearing.Theamendedpetitionallegesthattheappellant'sguiltypleawasnotknowinglyenteredduetotheineffectivenessofcounselinfailingtoadvisetheappellantofavailablealternativestopleadingguilty.Theamendedpetitionadditionallyallegesthatcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoproperlyinvestigatethechargesagainsttheappellant.TheStatefiledananswer,requestingthatthepetitionbedismissed,becausethepetitionistimebarred.AtamotionhearingonFebruary1,1995,thepostconvictioncourtdismissedthepetition,findingittobebarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.@ ANALYSIS  Theappellantcontendsthatthedismissalofhispetitionviolateshisrighttodueprocess.Insupportofhiscontention,theappellantassertsthat,atthetimeofhisconviction,therewasnostatuteoflimitationsapplicabletothefilingofapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Moreover,theappellantarguesthathewasunawareofthesubsequentenactmentofastatuteoflimitationsandthathepossessesalimitededucationalbackground. InBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,208(Tenn.1992),oursupremecourtheldthatthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsprovisioninTenn.CodeAnn.4030102complieswiththedueprocessrequirementsofbothstateandfederalconstitutions.Furthermore,thiscourt,inWillisv.State,No.01C019211CR00359(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,October21,1993),heldthatlackofknowledgeofthestatuteoflimitationsprovisiondoesnotexcuselatefilings.SeegenerallySkinnerv.State,No.02C019403CC00039(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,July13,1994);Spencev.State,No.968(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,November8,1991).Thisissueiswithoutmerit. Theappellantnextcontendsthatthepostconvictioncourterredbynotfindinga"safetyvalve"toexemptthelatefilingofhispetition.TheappellantcitesBurfordasauthorityforthisposition.Theappellant'sargumentismisplaced.OursupremecourtrecognizedinBurfordthat,becauseofaproceduraltrap,"itispossiblethatunderthecircumstancesofaparticularcase,applicationofthestatutemaynotaffordareasonableopportunitytohavetheclaimedissueheardanddecided."Burford,845S.W.2dat208(citationsomitted).Burfordhasnoapplicationtothefactsofthecasebeforeus. TheTennesseeSupremeCourt,inSandsv.State,903S.W.2d297,301(Tenn.1995),providedathreestepprocesstobeutilizedbythecourtswhenapplyingBurfordtodeterminewhetherapetitioner'sclaimforreliefistimebarred.Thisprocessrequiresthereviewingcourtto:(1)determinewhenthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun;(2)determinewhetherthegroundsforreliefactuallyaroseafterthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced;and(3)ifthegroundsare"laterarising,"determineif,underthefactsofthecase,astrictapplicationofthelimitationsperiodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim.Id.Applyingthisproceduretothecasebeforeus,weconcludethatthelimitationsperiodfortheappellantbegantorunonJuly1,1986. $   ׀Accordingly,becausethegroundstheappellantallegesinsupportofhispetitionwereavailableonJuly1,1986,theappellant'sclaimsbecametimebarredonJuly1,1989.Theappellant'spetitionwasfiledonOctober3,1994,morethanfiveyearsafterthelimitationsperiodhadrun.Theappellant'sfilingwasclearlyoutsidethestatutorytimeframe,and,therefore,hispetitionisbarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations. Accordingly,weaffirmthepostconvictioncourt'sdismissalofthepetition.     ____________________________________     DavidG.Hayes,JudgeCONCUR:_____________________________WilliamM.Barker,Judge_____________________________JerryL.Smith,Judge