WPCl }HX3[Y;[>d$ғS)nS9wKSŰI9'f:ɠG Պ˅91Z疥t!pZ`°W`=ڎ&;3E ̴]R=[3K srN6г gAxSZԗA[ⴿsw@@XsM=uwzM\V!&ACLDeY_BI܂0&xz(kKix6.:_sزv:⓮gCx@[eyY ("IllyD|XwTsg#1E`P2mfk|?9\ncfF % U.  nX 0PH 4  0 0DH w@ U : eU:k/U: ----------------- B333333 D3PPP 0D AO 0D D/  BO \  $D     1    KX XԀWenotethatthestatuteatissueintheExparteChattanoogaBarAssnandBerkedecisions `  wasT.C.A.29309.ThisstatuteisnowcodifiedatT.C.A.233202. X%2A`ArialTT3|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  h&(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0   EEDEӀ,cAZ"Arial Regular [  $D     1     KX XԀWenotethatthestatuteatissueintheExparteChattanoogaBarAssnandBerkedecisions `  wasT.C.A.29309.ThisstatuteisnowcodifiedatT.C.A.233202.,cAZ"Arial Regular %  $D     2     KX XԀAlthoughthepetitionerspetitionwasfiledunderthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995, `  thisActdoesnotallowK K additionaltimeandopportunityforpetitionerswhoseclaimsarealreadybarred   bythepriorstatuteoflimitations.Carterv.State,952S.W.2d417,420(Tenn.1997).# KK# XXX XXX   Ad FILED.   August9,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. .AppellateCourt  Clerk ,cAZ"Arial RegularH d$$$$'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !D   ` X  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXX X7  XXdXXd7r*<,(j 8 `@Ef  tt0"R` rߛ  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @]]:;ATKNOXVILLE@ZZ8;JUNE1999SESSION ̜ JOHNWILLIEPARTEE,     T )  p     L      T )   C.C.A.NO.03C019805CR00191  `    Appellleeantant,  򀀀   T ) P     L      T )  KNOXCOUNTY  @  VS.   L      T ) 0     L      T )  HON.RAYL.JENKINS,   МSTATEOFTENNESSEE,     T )  JUDGE p    L      T )  AppellANantee.      T )  (PetitionforMalpractice/Post P    L      T   Conviction)  @  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     T   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   JOHNWILLIEPARTEE,ProSe   T   PAULG.SUMMERS  p  TurneyCenterIndustrialPrison   T   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  !`  Route1  "P  Only,TN371409709      T   R.STEPHENJOBE #@     L      T   Asst.AttorneyGeneral  $0     L      T   CordellHullBldg.,2ndFl. %     L      T   425FifthAve.,North   L      T   Nashville,TN372430493   L      T        L      T   RANDALLNICHOLS  @)"    L      T   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   L      T   400MainAve.,Suite168   L      T   CityCountyBldg.   L      T   Knoxville,TN379011468   L      T      L      T      L   OPINIONFILED:򀀀 30*-  AFFIRMED  P7-1  JOHNH.PEAY,   :04 Judge  <26S X  @:; lXXOPINION#XXl#Ԉ `     InMarchof1983,thepetitionerwasfoundguiltybyajuryofassaultwithintenttocommitfirstdegreemurder.HewassubsequentlysentencedtoatermofsixtyyearstobeservedintheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.Ondirectappeal,thisCourtaffirmedthepetitionersconviction.In1990,thepetitionerfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Thetrialcourtfoundthepetitionwasfiledaftertheapplicablestatuteoflimitationshadexpiredandthepetitionwasdismissed.Onappeal,thisCourtupheldthedismissalofthepetition.OnApril16,1998,thepetitionerfileda PetitionforMalpractice.Thispetitionwasdismissedbythelowercourt.Thepetitionernowappeals.Afterareviewoftherecordandapplicablelaw,weaffirmthejudgmentofthelowercourt.  Thepetitioners PetitionforMalpracticeallegesthathe hassufferedgreatlybecause[hisattorneys]violatedhisConstitutionalRights.Specifically,thepetitionercontendsthathiscourtappointedtrialattorneysignoredthefactthathisindictmentwasdefectiveinthatitwasnotsignedbytheGrandJuryForemananditdidnotcontainthephrase againstthepeaceanddignityofthestateofTennessee.Thepetitionerfurthercontendsthathissentenceofsixtyyearswasillegalundertheexistinglawatthetimeofhisconviction.Thepetitionerallegesthathisdueprocessrightswereviolatedbecausethecountyinwhichhewasindicted hadneverhadaBlackforemanto[sic]theGrandJury,norhadthereeverbeenaBlackMemberonthePaneloftheGrandJury.Thepetitionerclaimsthesefactssupporttheallegationthathisattorneysconspiredwiththeprosecutorsofficetodeprivethepetitioner ofhisFreedomandhisConstitutionalRightstoEqualProtectionoftheLaw. 6&-0  6 -2   Wenoteinitiallythatthepetitioninthecaseatbarwastitled PetitionforMalpractice.However,itisnotentirelyclearwhetherthispetitionisactuallyapetitionforpostconvictionrelief. X4XXX4 KX X4Ԁ# X4X Kw#Underthegeneralrulethatpleasshallbegiventheeffect   requiredbytheircontentwithoutregardtothenamegiventhembythepleader,thepetitioncouldbetreatedasapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.SeeBrighamv.Lack,755 0 S.W.2d469,47071(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).#X4XX X4X#Accordingtothepetitioner,his Petition \  forMalpracticewasfiledpursuanttoT.C.A.233202,whichallowsindividualstoinitiatedisciplinaryproceedingsagainstanattorney.TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasheldthat [a]nyindividualaggrievedbytheactorconductofanattorneymayavailhimselfof[this]statute.ExparteChattanoogaBarAssn,566S.W.2d880,884(Tenn.1978). , However,stalenessinachargeagainstanattorneymaypreventaclaimfiledunderthisstatutefrombeingconsidered.TennesseeBarAssnv.Berke,344S.W.2d567,572 $ (Tenn.App.1960).   #  1      Anunreasonabledelayintheprosecutionofanattorneycouldmake  itimpossiblefortheattorneytoprocurewitnessesortestimonythatwouldhavebeenavailablenearertothetimeoftheallegedmisconduct.Id.Insuchacase,thedoctrine "( oflacheswouldjustifythedismissalofthepetition.Id. T$   Inthecaseatbar,theallegedmisconductoccurredmorethanfifteenyearsago.Thedelayinfilingthepresentactionwasnotthefaultofthepetitionersattorneys.Assuch,thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionindismissingthepetitioninrelianceonthedoctrineoflaches.Id.;seealsoStatev.Gipson,940S.W.2d73,76(Tenn.Crim. P-#( App.1996)(holdingthattheapplicationofthedoctrineoflacheswillnotbereversedexceptonashowingofabuseofthetrialcourtsdiscretion).Inaddition,evenifthepetitionwasnotbarredbythedoctrineoflaches,thedefendantwouldnotbeentitledtorelieffromhisconvictionorsentenceunderT.C.A.233202.Thisstatutedealssolely 4 +0 withtheissueofdisciplinaryproceedingsforattorneys.  Wenextaddressthepetitionintheeventthatitisactuallyapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.ThisCourthaspreviouslyheldthatanypetitionerwhosejudgmentbecamefinalbeforeJuly1,1986,hadonlythreeyearsthereaftertofileapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.DavidCoxv.State,No.03C019712CC00532,BlountCounty(Tenn. \  Crim.App.filedFebruary19,1999,atKnoxville)(citingStatev.%  Masucci,754S.W.2d90 (  (Tenn.Crim.App.1988));T.C.A.4030102(repealed1995).Asthepetitionersconvictionbecamefinalin1984,hehaduntilJuly1,1989,tofileapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.AshispetitionwasnotfileduntilAprilof1998,hispetitionwasfiledoutsidetheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.  #  2       X   Nevertheless,thepetitionerclaimsthatheisentitledtopostconvictionreliefunderT.C.A.4030202(b)(1).Thissectionprovidesthatapostconvictionpetitionmaybefiledoutsidethestatuteoflimitationsifthepetition isbaseduponafinalrulingofanappellatecourtestablishingaconstitutionalrightthatwasnotrecognizedasexistingatthetimeoftrialand retrospectiveapplicationofthatrightisrequired.T.C.A.4030202(b)(1).However,suchpetitionmustbefiledwithinoneyearofthecourtrulingestablishingthenewconstitutionalright.T.C.A.4030202(b)(1).  Inthecaseatbar,the newconstitutionalrulerelieduponbythepetitionerwassetoutinRosev.MitchellandestablishedthattheEqualProtectionClauseofthe /%* FourteenthAmendment isviolatedifthekeymansystemofselectinggrandjuryforemenisusedtosystematicallyexcludeblacks.Statev.Jefferson,769S.W.2d875,876 2T). (Tenn.Crim.App.1988)(citingRosev.Mitchell,443U.S.545(1979)).However,Rose `  v.Mitchellwasdecidedin1979andthepetitionerspresentpetitionwasnotfileduntil ,  1998.Therefore,itisnota newconstitutionalrule.Assuch,hispetitiondoesnotfallunderanexceptiontothestatuteoflimitationsapplicabletopostconvictionpetitions.SeeT.C.A.4030202(b)(1). X4XXX4Althoughthepetitionerclaimsthathispetitionwasnot 0 filedearlierbecausehistrialattorneysrefusedtopresenttheissueandbecausehedidnotknowhowtoprepareorpresenttheissueonhisown,thesearenotrecognizedexceptionstotheapplicablelimitationsperiod.SeeT.C.A.4030202(b).Assuch,the   petitionerisnotentitledtoreliefonthesegrounds.#X4XX X4/# `   Inlightoftheforegoing,thecourtproperlydismissedthepetitioners PetitionforMalpractice.   L      T   ______________________________   L      T   JOHNH.PEAY,JudggeJudgeCONCUR:_______________________________daDAVIDG.HAYES,Judge_______________________________JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,jUDGEJudge