WPC 6a?[G^7*:w ȎL ȾRHكuo졅goFPL3?l=BW?3wn䘾fL@e/نER6rz-2&/ۉ[Q k_P'x1`DbwFzh5)jUG#T|]nwM\GDۆg[VU':\UW4Aa F-NkfZd?PIA!DU! ,0S;Gxֿ^<4U[P9LFhRǙW#Ӄ\M+~|+u`JnOb9 8Mܩc"L ϑ4x~5̔BVls;©'a2}&-17K)$[R#z[Dé[IW))> %gU.mnX 0P4Sg 0y 0D w@Q U:    U:.UB66666666666 AQx 0D 0D 0D B[ D/xx B D3  !"  XXX X!XX   Ad FILEDXX!   December30,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk  X%2A`ArialTT3|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  n~<$   $D     1     {X XԀWenotethatthepetitionerdoesnotallegeanygroundstojustifyafindingofanillegal `  convictionotherthanthegroundsusedtoarguethathissentencewasillegal.Astherecordisalsodevoidofanyevidencethatmightsupportafindingthathisconvictionwasillegal,thiscontentioniswithoutmeritevenifnotbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0     E   EDӀ,cAZ"Arial RegularH   $D     2    ݀ {X XUnderthesentencingguidelinesineffectbeforeNovember1,1989,aRangeIstandard `  offendercouldbesentencedtotentothirtyfiveyearsforrobberybytheuseofadeadlyweapon.See F  T.C.A.4035109(1982);T.C.A.392501(1982).UndertheCriminalSentencingReformActof1989,robberybyuseofadeadlyweaponwascharacterizedasaClassBfelonyandaRangeIstandardoffenderconvictedofaClassBfelonycouldonlybesentencedtoeighttotwelveyears.SeeT.C.A.   4035118(1989);T.C.A.4035112(a)(2)(1989).   $D     3     {X XԀAlthoughthejudgmentformissilentonthisissue,thepleaagreementindicatesthatthe `  sentencesareconcurrent.,cAZ"Arial Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi !"#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1   d''' dxdP Pd$$$$'dxd !D   ` X  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'TX)XX X7  XXdd7r(<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$ ` rt(>.*jx]` `@E/` ` ttx$g` tߛ  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@;;ATJACKSON@qq6;OCTOBER1998SESSION KEVINLAVELLABSTON,   T )  p     L      T )   C.C.A.NO.02C019807CR00212  `    Appellant,  򀀀   T ) P     L      T )  SHELBYCOUNTY  @  VS.   L      T ) 0     L      T )  HON.JOSEPHB.BROWN,JR.,   STATEOFTENNESSEE,     T )  JUDGE p    L      T )  Appellee.      T )  (PostConviction)  P  FORTHEAPPELLANT:     T   FORTHEAPPELLEE:   KEVINLAVELLABSTON,ProSe T   JOHNKNOXWALKUP   LauderdaleCo.CorrectionalComplex  T   AttorneyGeneral&Reporter   p  Site#1  !`  P.O.Box1000 L      T   DOUGLASD.HIMES "P  Henning,TN380411000     T   Asst.AttorneyGeneral  #@     L      T   425FifthAve.,North $0    L      T   Nashville,TN372430493̀   L      T    p&     L      T   WILLIAML.GIBBONS  `'     L      T   DistrictAttorneyGeneral   L      L      T   JOHNNYR.McFARLAND  0* #    L      T   Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral   L      T   201PoplarAve.,Suite301   L      T   Memphis,TN381031947   L      T        L      T      L   OPINIONFILED:򀀀 1P(+ ̜  AFF   UR==   IRMEDINPART, REVERSED IN   OPAR  PART,ANDREMANDED  p5,/  JOHNH.PEAY,  @8.2 Judge   :04' X  @:; GEXX)OPINION#X)XGE8#Ԉ `       OnNovember17,1989,thepetitionerpledguiltytosixteencountsofrobberywiththeuseofadeadlyweaponandwassentencedtofiftyyearsinprison.Thepetitionerdidnotdirectlyappealtheseconvictions.However,onJune1,1998,thepetitionerfiledsixteenprosepetitionsforpostconvictionreliefallegingthathisconvictionswereillegal,thathissentencewasillegal,thatthepetitionerwasdeniedtheeffectiveassistanceofcounsel,andthathisguiltypleaswerenotknowingandvoluntary.OnJune26,1998,thepostconvictioncourtdismissedthepetitionsonthegroundthattheywerebarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.Thepetitionernowappealsandarguesthatthepostconvictioncourterredwhenitdismissedhispetitionsforpostconvictionrelief.  WhenthepetitionerpledguiltyonNovember17,1989,athreeyearstatuteoflimitationswasineffectregardingpostconvictionpetitions.T.C.A.4030102(repealed1995).ThisstatuteoflimitationsbegantorunwhenthejudgmentsagainstthepetitionerbecamefinalinDecemberof1989.SeeStatev.Moore,814S.W.2d381,382 '&  (Tenn.Crim.App.1991).AsthepetitionerspostconvictionpetitionswerefiledafterDecember1992,thethreeyearstatuteoflimitationshadexpired.Althoughthereareexceptionstothestatuteoflimitations,thedefendanthasallegednothingthatwouldbringhispetitionwithinthoselimitedcircumstancesentitlinghimtorelief.SeeT.C.A. /%( 4030202(b).  Althoughthegroundsallegedinthepostconvictionpetitionsdonotfallunderanyofthestatutoryexceptionstotheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,thepetitioner 6&-0 Мcontendsthatthestatuteoflimitationsdoesnotapplyinthiscasebecausehis 6&-2 МconvictionsXXXX  #XXXXބ#andsentencesareillegalandthereforevoid.Weagreethatthestatuteof `  limitationsdoesnotbarthepetitionersclaimthathissentencesareillegal.SeeState ,  v.Mahler,735S.W.2d226,228(Tenn.1987)(notingthatgenerally,anillegaljudgment   maybenoticedatanytime,evenafteritbecomesfinal).Thestatuteoflimitations,however,doesbarthepetitionerscontentionsthathisconvictionsareillegal,  #  1      ׀thathe 0 receivedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,andthathisguiltypleaswereunknowingandinvoluntary.  Afterareviewoftherecord,itappearsthatthepetitionerssentencesmaybeillegalinthattheyexceededtheallowablesentenceforaRangeIstandardoffenderundertheoldsentencingguidelinesandallrangesundertheCriminalSentencingReformActof1989.  #  2      ׀However,fromtherecorditisimpossibletomakeacleardeterminationas $ towhetherthesentencesareillegalbecausethereisonlyonejudgmentformincludedintherecordanditappearstohavebeenusedforallsixteenofthepetitionersconvictions.Thisjudgmentformfailstoindicateifthefiftyyearsentenceimposedonthepetitionerisatotalofseveralconsecutivesentencesorifitisonetermimposedonallcountstorunconcurrently.   #  3      ׀  &    Inlightoftheforegoing,weremandthiscausesothatanattorneycanbeappointedforthepetitionerandahearingcanbeheldtodetermineifthepetitioners +$"& Мsentence s 񛀜 is areindeedillegal.Ifthesentences񛀜isarefoundtobeillegal,itheyshouldbesetasideandahearingheldtodetermineifthedefendantisentitledtowithdrawhisguiltypleas.SeeStatev.Burkhart,566S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.1978).     Accordingly,thedismissalofthepetitionerspetitionsforpostconvictionreliefisaffirmedinpart,reversedinpart,andremandedforahearingtodeterminethelegalityofthepetitionerssentences.   L      T   ______________________________   L      T   JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge______________________________L.T.%  LAFFERTY,SeniorJudge