WPC! N쫚Ҩ cO(+>r&(M-%L թYc9X`T/O˅q)7V*,Imnay5 хq7ֈ$ tTxOPn D PD*B)IqU@.mTh:4~}} LyvɼS_EܹHuhɭX~b3!EA,>0Vn0*U4,%Clxp&ۋ fc>N})$oؾ:6wXRVԗEXo9&mL{=Ff?#~exE̥)!jFhЧJa{e?cQL:!sȾ ^r8Y$ (wݙ܁5p   [ ! 0DN+-Ei}kUNb 0 B 0 D5 D- 0K AS: 0S 0D A;!(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    Ef) UUb)أ3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0\  `&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    Rp\$      1     _Thefactsleadingtotheappellant'sconvictionsasrecitedinthiscourt'sopinionondirectappealrevealthat:  8  8`   Theappellantresidedwiththetwovictims,hisfatherandgrandmother.His t grandmotherwas81andphysicallydisabled.Theappellanthadahistoryofdrug 8 abuse.Hewasprohibitedfromdrivingandsubjecttoacurfew.Heresentedhis L restrictions.` x` x 8  8`   InJulyof1993,theappellantcalledhisemployer.Hisemployerinformedhimthat t hewaslaidoff.Laterthatday,theappellantkilledbothhisfatherandhis 8 grandmother.Bothvictimswere:(1)beatenwithahammer;(2)stabbedmultiple L times;and(3)slashedacrossthethroat.Theappellanttookmoneyfromhisfather's  billfoldandhisgrandmother'spurse.HestoleaVCRandhisfather'scar.Hethen  purchased"crack"cocaineand"gothigh."H ` x` x Statev._Bivens_,967S.W.2d821,823(Tenn._Crim_.App.1996),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1997).  Rp\$      2     _Specifically,inexcusingthelatefiledpetition,thetrialcourtstated  8  Manytimesweseepetitionsfiledyearsandsometimesfiledthreeandfour...yearspastthecutoff. t IunderstandtheStatesargument,butIfeellikeunderthecircumstances,intheinterestofjustice,this 8 isnotonethatwastremendouslydelayed,andcounseliscominginandbeenverycandidthattheyfeel L likefromtheirrecordsthattheydidnotsendoutnoticetoMr.Bivensastothedecisionrenderedby  thehighercourt.   8  Imgoingtoallowthepetitionforpostconvictiontoproceed.... \   8   s Rp\$      3     _Onappeal,theappellantallegesasgroundsforineffectivenesstrialcounsel'sfailure(1)tochallengethe  suppressionofhisstatementondirectappeal;(2)toobjecttotheState'sfailuretodiscloseexculpatoryevidence;(3)to t obtainexpertwitnesses;(4)tomaketimelyobjectionstotheintroductionofevidence;(5)toobjecttothebiasofthetrial 8 court;and(6)toadequatelyconferwiththeappellantinpreparationfortrial.  Rp\$      4     _WeacknowledgethatthePostConvictionProcedureActisnotaconstitutionallymandatedprocedure.  Accordingly,thelegislaturemayproperlyimposelimitationsuponthetimeinwhichthecauseofactionarisingunder t theactmustbebrought.(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2p\$ !.8(d d 8         0  O  d(|3$ !.8(d d 8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8(d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8(%d d8     _   8IEXXdd 8@ttINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON# #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefs @  @` October3,2000 L XTNX #XXTN#JEFFREY_BIVENS_Ԁv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXTNX  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMadisonCounty  J @@No.C99191,RoyB.Morgan,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199901028CCAR3PCFiledNovember3,2000   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Jeffrey_Bivens_ԀappealsfromtheMadisonCountyCircuitCourtsdenialofhispetitionforpost x  convictionrelief.Althoughthepetitionwasfiledoutsidetheoneyearlimitationsperiod,thepost d convictioncourtexcusedthe latefiledpetition intheinterestofjustice.Followingahearing P uponthemeritsofthepetition,thecourtdeniedpostconvictionrelief.Becausethepetitionwas < timebarred,thepostconvictioncourtwaswithoutjurisdictiontoconductahearingonthemerits. (x Forthisreason,dismissalofthepetitionisaffirmed.Sgd S#XXTN#XTNX XTNXXXTN g  S#XTNXX XTN##XXTN# XTNX Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.  n   #XTN#XTNX.DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJerryL.Smith,J.andAlanE. F Glenn,J.,joined. 2 ScottG.Kirk,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellant,Jeffrey_Bivens_.  Z PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral,LucianD. 2 _Geise_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,JamesG.(Jerry)_Woodall_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,andAl   Earls,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. !   #XXTNd #XTNX5 @@OO& OPINION #XXTNU #XTNX ~$# #XXTN #  XTNX  Theappellant,Jeffrey_Bivens_,appealsthedismissalofhispetitionforpost-convictionrelief V&!% bytheCircuitCourtofMadisonCounty.Theappellantwasconvictedbyajuryoftwocountsoffirst B'"& degreemurderandreceivedconsecutivesentencesoflifewithoutparoleoneachcount._ #  1      _ԀHis .(~#' _convictionwasaffirmedondirectappealtothiscourt.SeeStatev.Bivens,967S.W.2d821(Tenn.  Crim.App.1996),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1997).Aprosepetitionseekingpostconviction  reliefwasfiledbytheappellantonMay17,1999.Theappellantcollaterallyattackedhismurder  convictionsuponnumerousgroundsincludingineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,coercedconfessions, t Bradyviolations,andjudicialmisconduct.TheStatemovedtodismissthepetitionasbarredbythe ` oneyearstatuteoflimitations.Theappellantrequestedthecourtexcusethelatefilingofthepetition L  explainingthatthelatefilingwasduetoappellatecounselsfailuretonotifyhimofthesupreme 8  courtsdenialofhisRule11application.Thepostconvictioncourt excuse[d]thestatuteof $ t limitationsinthiscaset #  2      ׀andproceededtohearthepetitiononitsmerits.OnOctober15,1999,the  ` postconvictioncourtdeniedtheappellantrelief,findingthattheappellant failedtomeethisburden  L  ofproofastoanyandallissuesraisedinthepetition.Inthisappealofright,thesingleissue  8  presentedbytheappellantforourreviewiswhethertheappellantwasdeniedtheeffectiveassistance $  ofcounselattrial.  #  3      ׀Weconclude,however,thatthedispositiveissueiswhetherthepetitionistime   barred.     Findingthepetitionbarredbythestatuteoflimitations,weaffirmthepostconvictioncourts   dismissal. p   PursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.40-30-202(a)(1997), H 8  apersonincustodyunderasentenceofacourtofthisstatemustpetitionfor 4 post-convictionreliefwithinoneyearofthedateofthefinalactionofthehighest  p stateappellatecourttowhichanappealistakenor,ifnoappealistaken,withinone  \ yearofthedateonwhichjudgmentbecamefinal.Thestatuteoflimitationsshallnot  betolledforanyreason,includinganytollingorsavingprovisionotherwiseavailable  atlaworequity.Timeisoftheessenceoftherighttofileapetitionforpost  convictionrelieformotiontoreopen...,andtheoneyearlimitationsperiodisan t elementoftherighttofilesuchanactionandisaconditionuponitsexercise. `  Exceptasspecificallyprovided...therighttofileapetitionforpostconviction L  relief...shallbeextinguishedupontheexpirationofthelimitationsperiod.8     Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(a)(emphasisadded).Indeed,beyondtheoneyearstatuteof  ` limitations,thetrialcourtlacksjurisdictiontohearapetitionunlessoneofthreelimitedexceptions  L  apply. #  4      ׀SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b). Theseexceptionsarestatutorily  limitedtothe  8  following: (  8  (1)Theclaiminthepetitionisbaseduponafinalrulingofanappellatecourt   establishinga constitutionalright thatwasnotrecognizedasexistingatthetimeof   trial,ifretrospectiveapplicationofthatrightisrequired....    8  (2)Theclaiminthepetitionisbasedupon newscientificevidence establishingthat d suchpetitionerisactuallyinnocentoftheoffenseoroffensesforwhichthepetitioner T wasconvicted;or@   8  (3)Theclaimassertedinthepetitionseeksrelieffromasentencethatwas enhanced h becauseofapreviousconvictionand suchconvictioninthecaseinwhichthe X claimisassertedwasnotaguiltypleawithanagreedsentence,andthe previous H convictionhassubsequentlybeenheldtobe invalid....8   Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b)(1),202(b)(2),202(b)(3)(emphasisadded). Additionally, the  limitationsperiodmayalsobetolledwhereapplicationoftheoneyearperiodwouldoffend  principlesofdueprocess.SeeBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,208209(Tenn.1992).      `    AlthoughthePost-ConvictionProcedureActprovidesseverallimitedexceptionstothe x  one-yearstatuteoflimitations,noneofthemareapplicabletothepresentcase.SeeTenn.Code d! Ann.40-30-202(b).Moreover,applicationofthestatuteoflimitationsinthiscasedoesnotcreate P"  aproceduraltrapoffendingdueprocess.SeeBurford,845S.W.2dat208209.See,e.g.,Statev. <#! Phillips,904S.W.2d123,124(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)(failuretocomplywiththestatuteof ($x" limitations,evenwhenbaseduponerroneousadvicefromanattorney,doesnotprovidean %d # exception). &P!$   &<"%   ThejudgmentinthepresentcasebecamefinalonJuly7,1997.Thus,theappellanthaduntil   July7,1998,tofilehispetition.Thepetition,however,wasnotfileduntilMay17,1999,well  beyondtheapplicablestatuteoflimitations.Accordingly,thetrialcourtwaswithoutjurisdictionto  hearthepetitionanddetermineitsmerits.Moreover,thePostConvictionActrequiresthatapetition t filedoutsidetheapplicablelimitationsperiodbesummarilydismissedwithoutconductingan ` evidentiaryhearing.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030206(b)(1997);seealsoTenn.Sup.Ct.R.28, L  6(B)(4)(c). 8    Accordingly,thepostconvictioncourtlackedjurisdictiontoconsidertheappellantspetition  ` onitsmeritsandwasrequiredbystatutetodismissthepetition.Althoughwereachthesameresult  L  albeitthroughdifferentmeans,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtdenyingthe  8  appellantpostconvictionrelief. $     `     h     ___________________________________ \    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE