ÿWPCr 6# UN %] 0(cw@‹4Ëß 0ˆî 0Dvº 0J 0T  0^` 0h¾ 0r& 0|˜ 0† 0š 1u* 0dŸ B 0@ D3` U>“ U*Ñ AQû ÆL 0D 0DV D/š BÉ B)æ DC AMR 0Ÿ RÏv~!vÓŸ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ îDïðEñòDóôõöÓ€äzz!3|x(8(2¨$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd* 0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òJuly€8,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó HÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ôÔThe€three„year€statute€of€limitations€was€passed€in€1986.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed€1995).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ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 ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ ° ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ7€üËXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€(ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌÌà@ àMAY€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌARTHUR€MELVIN€TURNER,à à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9607„CR„00233€ÌÌà àà àAppellant,à àà à*à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€John€P.€Colton,€Jr.,€Judge€ÌœÙ€*ÙßR€120A1-j|6 ` Å `€€@ÿRß›ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction)ÌÌà àà àAppellee.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌArthur€Melvin€Turner€à àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌPro€Seà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌNo.€13253„076€ÌFederal€Correctional€Instituteà àà àWilliam€David€BridgersÌP.O.€Box€34550à àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌMemphis,€TN€€38134„0550à àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àLorraine€Craig€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€CenterÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌPER€CURIAMÇÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner,€Arthur€Melvin€Turner,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€ofÏhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€issue€presented€for€review€is€whether€theÏtrial€court€correctly€dismissed€the€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€theÏbasis€that€it€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àà àThis€post„conviction€petition,€filed€April€15,€1996,€challenges€theÏvalidity€of€three€separate€convictions:€€a€March€17,€1971,€guilty€plea€to€third€degreeÏburglary;€a€May€23,€œ1974,›€guilty€plea€to€second€degree€burglary;€and€a€FebruaryÏ28,€1983,€guilty€plea.€€The€petitioner€contends€these€sentences€are€being€used€toÏenhance€a€sentence€received€in€federal€court.€€He€alleges€that€the€guilty€pleasÏwere€not€knowingly€and€voluntarily€made.€€The€trial€court€summarily€dismissed€theÏpetition€as€being€time„barred.€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€petitioner€makes€several€arguments€as€toÏwhy€his€petition€should€not€be€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€First,€heÏcontends€that€the€statute€of€limitations€does€not€apply€because€he€is€in€custody€ofÏthe€federal€rather€than€state€government.€€This€court€has€previously€held,€however,Ïthat€there€is€no€distinction€under€the€post„conviction€act€between€a€prisoner€inÍfederal€custody€and€one€in€state€custody.€€òòPassarella€v.€Stateóó,€891€S.W.2d€œ619,Ï622„23›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Also,€this€court€has€upheld€application€of€theÏstatute€of€limitations€against€a€federal€prisoner.€€òòSeeóó€òòPhillip€Woody€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï03C01„9211„CR„00396,€slip€op.€at€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€July€29,€1993).€ÏThus,€this€contention€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€application€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€violates€the€ex€post€facto€provisions€of€both€the€state€and€federalÏconstitutions.€€Our€courts€have€consistently€rejected€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏRichard€S.€Butleróó,€No.€1338,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€May€19,Ï1992).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòWilliam€Lynn€œJohnson€v.€Stateóó,›€œNo.€02C01„9605„CR„00136,€slip›Ïop.€at€œ5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€June€10,€1997).€€›ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€new€Post„Conviction€ProcedureÏAct€creates€a€one„year€window€in€which€any€petitioner€may€file.€€Effective€May€10,Ï1995,€the€new€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€replaced€the€prior€act€in€its€entirety.€ÏòòSeeóó€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Act€207,€ðððð€1€and€3.€€Because€this€petition€was€filed€in€AprilÏof€1996,€the€new€act€applies.€€The€most€recent€legislation€replaced€a€three„yearÏwith€a€one„year€limitation:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€...[A]€person€in€custody€under€a€sentence€of€a€court€ofÍthis€state€must€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€underÏthis€part€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€date€of€the€final€actionÏof€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€isÏtaken€or,€if€no€appeal€is€taken,€within€one€(1)€year€of€theÏdate€on€which€the€judgment€became€final,€orÏconsideration€of€such€petition€shall€be€barred.€€TheÏstatute€of€limitations€shall€not€be€tolled€for€any€reason....ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€No€court€shall€have€jurisdiction€to€consider€a€petitionÏfiled€after€such€time€unless:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(1)€The€claim€in€the€petition€is€based€upon€a€finalÏruling€of€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutionalÏright€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€ofÏtrial,€if€retrospective€application€of€that€right€is€required.€ÏSuch€petition€must€be€filed€within€one€(1)€year€of€theÏruling€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€or€the€UnitedÏStates€[S]upreme€[C]ourt€establishing€a€constitutionalÏright€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€ofÏtrial;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(2)€The€claim€in€the€petition€is€based€upon€newÏscientific€evidence€establishing€that€such€petitioner€isÏactually€innocent€of€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€theÏpetitioner€was€convicted;€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(3)€The€claim€asserted€in€the€petition€seeks€reliefÏfrom€a€sentence€that€was€enhanced€because€of€aÏprevious€conviction€and€such€conviction€in€the€case€inÏwhich€the€claim€is€asserted€was€not€a€guilty€plea€with€anÏagreed€sentence,€and€the€previous€conviction€hasÏsubsequently€been€held€to€be€invalid,€in€which€case€theÏpetition€must€be€filed€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€finality€ofÏthe€ruling€holding€the€previous€conviction€to€be€invalid.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202€(Supp.€1996).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àBecause€the€convictions€in€this€case€became€final€in€1971,€1974,€andÏ1983,€this€petition€appears€to€have€been€barred€not€only€by€the€current€one„yearÏstatute€of€limitations€but€also€the€former€three„year€statute.€€Moreover,€the€groundsÏraised€in€the€petition€and€on€appeal€do€not€appear€to€fall€within€any€of€theÏexceptions€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(b)(1),€(2),€or€(3)€(Supp.€1996).€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòArnold€Carter€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9509„CC„00270€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Knoxville,€July€11,€1996),€òòappeal€grantedóó,€(Tenn.,€Dec.€2,€1996),€a€panel€ofÏthis€court,€by€a€two„to„one€margin,€ruled€that€the€literal€terms€of€the€new€statuteÏcreated€a€one„year€window,€starting€on€May€10,€1995,€during€which€post„convictionÏpetitions€may€be€filed,€notwithstanding€the€date€of€the€judgment:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€act€shall€take€effect€upon€becoming€a€law,€theÏpublic€welfare€requiring€it€and€shall€govern€all€petitionsÏfor€post„conviction€relief€filed€after€this€date,€and€anyÏmotions€which€may€be€filed€after€this€date€to€reopenÏpetitions€for€post„conviction€relief€which€were€concludedÏprior€to€the€effective€date€of€this€act.€€òòNotwithstandingÏany€other€provision€of€this€act€to€the€contrary,€any€personÏhaving€a€ground€for€relief€recognized€under€this€act€shallÏhave€at€least€one€(1)€year€from€the€effective€date€of€thisÏact€to€file€a€petition€or€a€motion€to€reopen€under€this€act.ÌóóÌ1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Act€207,€ðð€3€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÓÓà àà àÌà àà àThis€majority€found€no€ambiguities€in€the€terminology€of€the€statuteÏdespite€the€reasonable€argument€by€the€dissent€to€the€contrary.€€In€òòCarteróó,€ourÏsupreme€court€granted€the€state's€application€for€permission€to€appeal.€€While€noÏdecision€has€yet€been€filed,€other€panels€of€this€court€have€adopted€the€dissentingÏview€in€òòCarteróó€and€have€held€that€the€new€act€did€not€create€a€new€one„year€filingÏperiod.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòRonald€Albert€Brummitt€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9512„CC„00415Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€11,€1997);€òòJimmy€Earl€Lofton€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï02C01„9603„CR„00073€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Mar.€7,€1997);€òòRoy€Barnett€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€03C01„9512„CV„00394€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Feb.€20,€1997);ÏòòStephen€Koprowski€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00365€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏKnoxville,€Jan.€28,€1997);€òòJohnny€L.€Butler€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9509„CR„00289Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Dec.€2,€1996).€€A€majority€of€this€panel€now€adheresÏto€the€holding€in€these€subsequent€cases.€€Thus,€treating€the€petition€as€one€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€this€claim€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€under€the€newÏAct.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€he€is€entitled€to€relief€under€the€principlesÏannounced€in€òòState€v.€Frazieróó,€784€S.W.2d€927€(Tenn.€1990);€òòState€v.€Newsomeóó,Ï778€S.W.2d€34€(Tenn.€1989);€and€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.Ï1987).€€òòFrazieróó€held€that€òòBoykinóó€was€not€to€be€applied€retrospectively€and€thatÍòòMackeyóó€violations€that€exceeded€the€mandates€of€òòBoykinóó€were€not€subject€toÏreview€during€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€òòFrazieróó,€784€S.W.2d€at€928.€ÏòòNewsomeóó€held€that€the€harmless€error€rule€applies€to€violations€of€òòMackeyóó.€ÏòòNewsomeóó,€778€S.W.2d€at€38.€€Neither€òòFrazieróó€nor€òòNewsomeóó€created€a€newÏconstitutional€right€to€be€applied€retroactively.€€The€plain€language€in€òòMcClintockóóÏprovides€that€the€ruling€only€applies€to€litigants€already€in€the€"pipeline."€ÏòòMcClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€at€274.€€None€of€these€rulings€afford€the€petitioner€anyÏrelief.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€the€former€post„conviction€statute€ofÏlimitations€does€not€apply€to€guilty€proceedings€unless€an€action€is€filed€in€theÏhighest€state€appellate€court.€€Our€court€has€routinely€held€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€on€guilty€pleas€commences€"when€the€judgment€of€conviction€[is]Ïentered."€€òòSharon€Ann€œConner€v.€Stateóó,›€No.€œ03C01„9509„CC„00279,€slip€op.€at€2Ï(Tenn.›€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€June€3,€1996).€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àœThe€petitioner€also›€argues€that€the€application€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€to€his€case€denies€him€due€process€of€law€and€that€the€post„convictionÏcourt€erred€when€it€did€not€find€an€exception€to€the€statute€of€limitations€in€this€case.€ÏInòò€Burford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.1992),€our€supreme€court€carved€out€aÍnarrow€exception€to€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations.€€Burford€had€beenÏsentenced€as€a€habitual€criminal€to€a€term€of€life€imprisonment€based€upon€fiveÏprior€robbery€convictions.€€òòId.óó€at€205.€€He€filed€a€timely€post„conviction€petition,Ïalleging€that€certain€of€his€five€prior€robbery€convictions€were€constitutionally€infirmÏbecause€he€had€not€been€advised€of€his€right€against€self„incrimination€beforeÏentering€his€plea;€€he€was€granted€post„conviction€relief€from€these€convictions.€€òòId.óó€ÏLater,€after€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€had€expired,€Burford€filed€a€petitionÏto€set€aside€the€finding€of€habitual€criminality€on€the€basis€that€there€was€no€longerÏa€sufficient€number€of€prior€felony€convictions€to€qualify€him€for€the€enhancedÏpunishment.€€òòId.óó€at€206.€€Our€supreme€court€ruled€that€the€statute€of€limitations,Ïwhile€generally€compliant€with€constitutional€due€process,€violated€Burford'sÏspecific€due€process€rights:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓIf€consideration€of€the€petition€is€barred,€Burford€will€beÏforced€to€serve€a€persistent€offender€sentence€that€wasÏenhanced€by€previous€convictions€that€no€longer€stand.€ÏAs€a€result,€Burford€will€be€forced€to€serve€an€excessiveÏsentence€in€violation€of€his€rights€under€the€EighthÏAmendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution,€and€Article€I,€ðð€16Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€which,€by€definition,€areÏfundamental€rights€entitled€to€heightened€protection.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€209.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.1995),€our€supreme€courtÍfurther€defined€how€to€apply€the€òòBurfordóó€test.€€A€court€must:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€determine€when€the€limitations€period€wouldÏnormally€have€begun€to€run;€€(2)€determine€whether€theÏgrounds€for€relief€actually€arose€after€the€limitationsÏperiod€would€normally€have€commenced;€€and€(3)€if€theÏgrounds€are€"later€arising,"€determine€if,€under€the€factsÏof€the€case,€a€strict€application€of€the€limitations€periodÏwould€effectively€deny€the€petitioner€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€present€the€claim.€€In€making€this€finalÏdetermination,€courts€should€carefully€weigh€theÏpetitioner's€liberty€interest€in€"collaterally€attackingÏconstitutional€violations€occurring€during€the€convictionÏprocess,"€against€the€State's€interest€in€preventing€theÏlitigation€of€"stale€and€fraudulent€claims."€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301€(citations€omitted)€(quoting€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€207,Ï208).€€ÌÌà àà àBy€the€use€of€these€guidelines,€we€have€first€determined€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€for€this€petitioner's€convictions€expired€in€1989.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€TheÏpetitioner's€argument€fails€at€the€second€step.€€He€argues€his€pleas€wereÏinvoluntary.€€The€right€to€the€voluntariness€of€a€guilty€plea€was€established€wellÏbefore€petitioner's€convictions€were€entered.€€œòòSee,€e.g.óó,›€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395ÏU.S.€238€(1969).€€Thus,€he€has€not€established€that€a€constitutional€right€arose€afterÍhis€convictions€became€final€or€after€his€statute€of€limitations€expired.€€To€the€extentÏthe€petitioner€argues€his€pleas€are€invalid€because€he€was€not€advised€that€theÏconviction€could€be€used€to€enhance€a€subsequent€punishment,€that€portion€of€theÏadvice€litany€is€not€constitutionally€required.€€Our€supreme€court€has€ruled€that€theÏ"advice€[that€the€conviction€may€be€used€to€enhance€a€future€sentence]€...€is€notÏbased€upon€any€constitutional€provision,€federal€or€state...€such€omissions€have€noÏvalidity€on€the€...€post„conviction€proceeding."€€òòState€v.€Princeóó,€781€S.W.2d€846,€853Ï(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà àà àThis€court€is€compelled€to€comment€on€the€1983€guilty€plea.€€TheÏpetition€states€that€this€conviction€occurred€on€"February€28,€1993."€€The€state€didÏnot€file€an€answer€indicating€when€the€conviction€occurred.€€The€trial€court's€orderÏdismissing€the€petition€also€did€not€indicate€the€date€of€conviction.€€Our€court,Ïhowever,€takes€judicial€notice€of€the€fact€that€the€conviction€in€this€case€occurred€onÏFebruary€28,€1983,€and€that€the€petition€contains€a€typographical€error.€€"The€courtsÏmay€take€judicial€notice€of€the€court€records€in€an€earlier€proceeding€of€the€sameÏcase€and€the€actions€of€the€courts€thereon."€òòDelbridge€v.€Stateóó,€742€S.W.2d€266,Ï267€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€addition,€appellate€courts€are€authorized€to€supplementÏincomplete€records.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(e).€€Accordingly,€we€have€supplementedÏthe€record€with€a€copy€of€the€judgment€and€œconclude›€that€the€conviction€did,€in€fact,Íbecome€final€on€February€28,€1983.€€ÌÌà àà àIf€judgment€had€been€entered€on€February€œ28,›€1993,€as€alleged,€theÏpetitioner€would€have€filed€a€timely€petition.€€In€òòBetsy€Jane€Pendergrast€v.€Stateóó,ÏNo.€01C01„9607„CC„00289,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€May€16,Ï1997),€this€court€ruled€that€the€new€Post„Conviction€Act€gives€individuals€whoseÏstatute€of€limitations€had€not€yet€run€a€year€from€the€effective€date€of€the€new€ActÏuntil€May€10,€1996.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€emphasize€that€the€state€has€an€obligation€to€file€portions€of€theÏrecord€"that€are€material€to€the€questions€raised€therein."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„208(b)€(1996€Supp.).€€"It€is€the€role€of€the€State,€and€not€the€court,€to€file€thoseÏparts€of€the€record€that€are€material€to€the€questions€raised€in€the€petition."€€òòAllen€v.ÏStateóó,€854€S.W.2d€873,€875€(Tenn.€1993).€ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€€€€€ÌÔ€'ÔÌÔ€(Ôà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPER€CURIAM€ÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌ