WPC dP[q^"/*-mS#˻V\(y8Ǭz&x>5ǐΟl\grތt$ hJMp z'tuBE{9?@i{(+~+bn '%J'ߛwRas; >;^sT +D㐸;T<]ډ+s9Uw?epHzs ʓޑq\:Wڪ7wJUN\o~xTF&<{Ƙ\dx= Px"^")о*U.L %zbGXt n 1 0(9 U:a w 4S U:g 0 0D: U:~ l 0D$$hU: AQ3 B 0D 0DZZ D/ B D3<6X9`(CourierX  $Xo^XXX `   3    TheSandspetitionerhadfiledtwoearlierpostconvictionactions.  $Xo^XXX `   1    Theallegedlyexculpatoryevidencerelatestotheaggravatedassault `  conviction.Accordingtothepetitioner,thevictimoftheaggravatedassaulttoldtheprosecutorthathehadprovokedthepetitionerandwasatfaultforwhatoccurred.Thepetitionerallegesthisstatementwaswithheldbytheprosecutorandifknowntohimwouldhaveaffectedhisdecisiontoenteraguiltyplea.  1$$XXXX `   2    Marian'snoteis,"AreyousayingBurfordandSandsmaynotapply `  tothenewP.C.Act?"Anexcellentquestion...BurfordandSandstype L  exceptionsarenowcodifiedinthenewact.IavoidedgettingintowhetherBurfordandSandsarestrictly"oldact"cases.Itseemstomethat $  legislationcannotcureconstitutionalshortcomings,soeveniftheexactBurfordandSandssituationshavebeenaddressedinthenewact,their   principlesmightbeapplicableinsomeunknownfuturecase.Whatareyourthoughtsabouthowtoaddressthis? 3|x <6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@($,  AZ"Arial Regular $e D   D D U D  E  E   D  E  E  E  U D  E  D  Ӏq$,cAZ"Arial Regular(I(2$  !  XIXXX `   0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular b $Xo^XXX `   2    InherconcurringopinioninBurford,JusticeDaughtreydiscussesa `  hypotheticalsituationinwhichevidencesuppressedbytheprosecutionmightsurfacemanyyearsafteratrialwascompleted.Burford,845S.W.2dat211 @  (Daughtrey,J.,concurring).Inthiscase,thepetitioner,whohashadthebenefitofcounselthroughouttheseproceedings,makesnoallegationaboutwhenhediscoveredtheinformationallegedlysuppressedbytheprosecutor.(3$  !    "  XIXXXXXI   Ad FILEDXIX   July9,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.ҠXXIAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  $Xo^XXX `   2    Marian'snoteis,"AreyousayingBurfordandSandsmaynotapply `  tothenewP.C.Act?"Anexcellentquestion...BurfordandSandstype P  exceptionsarenowcodifiedinthenewact.IavoidedgettingintowhetherBurfordandSandsarestrictly"oldact"cases.Itseemstomethat 0  legislationcannotcureconstitutionalshortcomings,soeveniftheexactBurfordandSandssituationshavebeenaddressedinthenewact,their  principlesmightbeapplicableinsomeunknownfuturecase.Whatareyourthoughtsabouthowtoaddressthis? !#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d(3$  !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd""""'dxd  !     `   TR[A'Legal3'A'redline3'T XzXXX7 z XXdXXd7   r )<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$` rߛ  @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  ̀@::'ATKNOXVILLE 0  @dd%MAY1998SESSION    FREDERICKORLANDOBLACK,  ) p   `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellant, h     ) p C.C.A.No.03C019710CC00466 P   `     h     )vs. `     h     ) p AndersonCounty x  0   `     h     ) STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     ) p Hon.WilliamLantrip,Judge  p   `     h     ) `  `  Appellee. h     ) p (PostConviction) P  `     h     ) p  @  `     h     FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE:   CHRISTOPHERVANRIPER     p JOHNKNOXWALKUP  p  AttorneyatLaw   h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter !` 300MainSt.,Ste.200Clinton,TN37716   h      p TODDR.KELLEY  #@  `     h      p Asst.AttorneyGeneral `     h      p 425FifthAve.N.,2dFloor  %    `     h      p Nashville,TN372430493 p&  `     h      p JAMESN.RAMSEY  P(!   `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral @)"  `     h      p JANHICKS  +!$  `     h      p Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral ,"%  `     h      p 127AndersonCountyCourthouse `     h      p Clinton,TN37716 OPINIONFILED:________________AFFIRMEDCURWOODWITT,JUDGE  p5,/   `6-0o @qq* OPINION  `   `  Thepetitioner,FrederickOrlandoBlack,appealstheAndersonCountyϜ Criminal  Circ   cuit   uit   Criminal Court'sdenialofhispetitionsforpostconvictionrelief.In1983,thepetitionerpleadedguiltytomaliciousshooting.In1988,hepleadedguiltytoaggravatedassault.Presently,heisservingafederalsentenceforadrugoffense.Inhispostconvictionpetitions,heallegeshisfederalsentencewasenhancedduetothe1983and1988AndersonCountyconvictions.Heseekstohavetheconvictionssetasidebasedonvariousinfirmities.Thecourtbelowfoundthepetitionsbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsanddismissedtheactions.Thepetitionerappealsthedismissals,claimingthiscourtshouldfinderror(1)inthetrialcourt'sfailuretomakefindingspursuanttoBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.   1995)andSandsv.State,903S.W.2d297(Tenn.1995),and(2)infailingtofind  thestatuteoflimitationsdeprivedthepetitionerofdueprocess.Havingreviewedtherecord,wefindnoerrorandaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. `   `  Thepetitioner'spostconvictionactionswerefiledonApril8,1996andDecember10,1996.Bothdatesarewellpastthe oneyear statuteoflimitationsapplicabletopostconvictionactions.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(a)(1997);see     Carterv. @)" State,  952S.W.2d417(Tenn.1997)(petitionersforwhom threeyear   statuteof  +!$ limitationsexpiredpriortoenactmentofoneyearstatuteoflimitationsdonothaverighttobringpostconvictionclaimwithinoneyearofenactment).Underthecurrentstatute,considerationofapetitionnotfiledwithinthestatuteoflimitationsisproperonlyiftheclaim(1)isbaseduponanewlyestablishedconstitutionalrightnotrecognizedatthetimeoftrial,(2)isbaseduponnewscientificevidenceestablishingactualinnocenceofthepetitioner,or(3)theclaimisbasedupontheenhancementofsentencenotresultingfromaguiltypleawithanagreedsentencewheretheenhancingsentencesubsequentlyhasbeenheldtobeinvalid.Tenn.CodeAnn.  :04 4030202(b)(1997). `  Thepetitioner'sclaimsdonotfitintoanyofthestatutorycategoriesforuntimelyconsideration.Hisallegationspertain  to  ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,unknowingandinvoluntaryguiltypleas,lackofjurisdictionofthetrialcourt,lackofnotice,andfailureoftheprosecutortodiscloseallegedlyexculpatoryevidence. #  1      ׀ `   `  Furthermore,weareunpersuadedthatthepetitioner'sclaimsarecontrolledbyBurfordorSands.Thosecasesaroseunderthepreviousversionof ` thePostConvictionProcedureAct,whichprovidedthatpostconvictionpetitionshadtobefiledwithin(a)threeyearsofthedateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourttowhichanappealwastaken,or(b)threeyearsfromJuly1,1986,theeffectivedateofthestatute.      #  2        SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102(1990)  (repealed1995);Statev.Mullins,767S.W.2d668,669(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).Xo^XX Xo^ !` М  !`  # Xo^XXXo^#  !` Л `  `  !`  Anexceptionapplied,however,topreservetherightofapostconvictionpetitioner #@ tomountanotherwiseuntimelychallengewherestrictapplicationofthestatuteoflimitationswoulddeprivethepetitionerofdueprocessoflaw.Burfordv.State,845 `'  S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992).  @)"  `   Burfordwasauniquecaseinwhichthepetitionerwascaughtina -#& proceduraltrapinwhichhefirsthadtosuccessfullychallengeconvictionsinapostconvictionproceedinginonecountyinordertohaveajusticiableclaimforreliefinpostconvictionproceedingsinanothercounty.Burford,845S.W.2dat208.He 2@), wascaughtinaquandarybecausetheapproachofthestatuteoflimitationsapplicabletothelatterclaimwasloomingpriortoadeterminationoftheformerclaim.Burford,845S.W.2dat208.Thesupremecourtfoundtheapplicationofthe   statuteoflimitationstothelatterclaimviolativeofdueprocessinthatlimitedcircumstanceandallowedtheBurfordpetitionertomaintainhisclaim  notwithstandingthestatuteoflimitations.SeeBurford,845S.W.2dat20910. `  Burforddidnot,however,givepostconvictionpetitionerstherighttowagecollateral @  attackonstaleconvictionsthemselvesoutsidethestatuteoflimitations. Tobesure  U  l   nliketheprese  t   ntpetitioner ,thepetitionerinBurfordfiledhisattackonhisenhancing ` convictionswithinthetimethenallowedundertheAct.SeegenerallyBurford,845 @ S.W.2d204.UnlikeBurford,thepetitionerhereinseekstochallengenothis   enhancedfederalsentence,overwhichthiscourthasnojurisdiction,buthisenhancingTennesseeconvictions.Inthissituation,theBurfordexceptionis  inapplicable. #  2       !`  `  InSands,thepetitionerallegedthatthejuryinstructionsusedinhis %  1977trialwerefoundunconstitutionalbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtin1979.πSands,903S.W.2dat  298.  TheSandspetitionerinitiatedhispostconvictionclaim @)" in1990,0 #  3      ׀welloutsidethethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.SeeSands,903S.W.2d  +!$ at298.Inpassingontheclaim,thesupremecourtconcludedthatthebasicruleof -#& Burfordwasthat"dueprocessprohibitsthestrictapplicationofthepostconviction .%( statuteoflimitationstobarapetitioner'sclaimwhenthegroundsforrelief,whether 0`'* legalorfactual,arise...afterthepointatwhichthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun."Sands,903S.W.2dat301.TheSandscourt @  establishedathreestepanalysisforapplyingtheBurfordruletospecificfactual   situations.Underthistest,thecourtshould:8 ` (1)0 ` ` determinewhenthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhave  beguntorun;   8 ` (2)0 ` ` determinewhetherthegroundsforreliefactuallyaroseafter P  thelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced;and   8 ` (3)0 ` ` ifthegroundsare"laterarising,"determineif,underthefacts   ofthecase,astrictapplicationofthelimitationsperiodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim...carefullyweigh[ing]thepetitioner'slibertyinterestin"collaterallyattackingconstitutionalviolationsoccurringduringtheconvictionprocess"againsttheState'sinterestinpreventingthelitigationof"staleandfraudulentclaims."   Sands,903S.W.2d301(quotingBurford,845S.W.2dat20708).   `  Inthecaseatbar,theonlyclaimwhichmightpossiblybecategorizedas"laterarising"perSandsisthepetitioner'sallegationthattheprosecutor $0 suppressedexculpatoryevidence.Evenifsocategorized,suchaclaimisdoomedtofailurebecausethepetitionerdoesnotallegethedateonwhichhediscoveredthepurportedmisdeedsoftheprosecution.  Thelackofthisinformation  preventsthecourt ,  first,from   determiningwhether   thegrounds  actuallyaroseafterthelimitationsperiodcommenced,  andsecond,balancing  thepetitioner'slibertyinterestagainstthestate'sinterestinpreventingcollateralattackonaneightyearoldconviction.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030206(f)(1997)("Ifthefactsalleged,taken 1P(+ astrue,failtoshowthatthepetitionerisentitledtorelief...thepetitionshallbedismissed.")Thus,Sandswouldnotsavethepetitioner'sclaim. p5,/  `   Because thepetitionerfailedto  establishthat   allegefacts  whichwould   underwhich   Burford  and 09/3 Sands   are  inapplicabletothecaseatbar  mightapplytohiscase ,   wefindnoint  t he  trial  court 'sfailuretomake  didnote  ir   rr  in   bynotmaking findings   `  underthethreestepSandsanalysis. @     `  Findingnoerrorinthetrialcourt'sdismissalofBlack'spetitions,weaffirmitsjudgment.̜     `     h     _______________________________ `     h     CURWOODWITT,JUDGE̜  ONC   C   CONCUR:  POJ   PM      _____________________________JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE_____________________________JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE