ÿWPC P_9b0GzéhÒµ»K¬è¬R?\›¹pFIò5«+Ï"gë-8Œ i"•kl$ˆ¼.÷.°¸Ÿw…ËžµeǾâøJ|¨·¤ZJ„ ¼¬8ÓlN˜Œ7¦=üP9í«i€˜ÚòûÒK"Й©ìà„Ü{À¢‘{VXN-ajü8]Êj’Þ$YtKéùí|­Kz&v¾Héª=qßA$µu·âªWµy2{¡1‡(o‰¿e!´éÄYJŠ4£ŠîRC«º,ô0¬#´bÒT¹¾°¨U–ÙÛ?N yßÚv‡SyNÂÛ[žìið¥0µü ÄÇZ2€‘ÇÜiÇfW QÈÆ‹ëÕT6-XóñÅAŠrj/·ð^é?q"H¿´åÎ6iÒ D‚PòÅMŽGø…%*kÖ°|RgG…—‰úlv}+7g6—#\ɓˮpð­™Ãs¬‘G;f8³ð ìÐ6IYbéÌR§BqCUgŠà¬hE͈¿áùo›‚•ŒÄ\ÿodP'[!Åk·8 ®7æÍž½rglÑyùÂyÌúkÒýž¢(¢áôr.Ɉ7|y×ÿ {¿s¶5»wLÿr)ØÐÞ¹.¤¬'õ”:»Éψ÷ËaeÇæ—øô‰ub#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% U N­ UNû I zQ ÒË z Ò ^ é wõ Æù Æ¿ Æ…ÆK4N%'6E8 m: 0DQ2•U@ÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇÇb 0ë Búú 0¤ D3» D-î 0K ASfƹ 0¤ 0D# A«g˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular  ˜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.wpt ˜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.wpt¸uÿ,â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5yG*Ü3£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó (Ý ƒR¶I$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷=ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIf€the€failure€to€comply€with€this€statute€rendered€the€judgement€vulnerable€to€collateral€attack,Ô‡ô÷=òòô÷=Ô€it€would€haveÐ ° Ðbeen€incumbent€upon€the€defendant€to€have€first€timely€attacked€its€validity€in€a€separate,€collateral€action€under€theÐ tÄ ÐPost-Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-30-201€to€„310òòóó.Ô#†ô÷=òòô÷=à#Ô(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2¶I$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Au»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô÷=ò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Au»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Au»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Au»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Au»»»ÔÑ8€ ¹XXdì»»d8ÑÔ€¼Au»»¼AuÔà@ttìàÔ‡îÅSAuÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼Au»îîÅS+#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓApril€23,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X ¹X»¼AuÔÌò òÔ#†¼Au»XX ¹#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€PERRY€RAY€DAVISòòóóÔ‡X ¹X»¼AuÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€229610€€€€€€€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„01432„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐJuly€31,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Perry€Ray€Davis,€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence,€fourth€offense,€andÐ xÈ  Ðdriving€on€a€revoked€license.€€In€this€appeal€as€of€right,€the€defendant€challenges€his€DUI€convictionÐ d´ Ðand€asserts€(1)€that€the€trial€court€impermissibly€relied€on€facially€invalid€convictions€to€enhance€hisÐ P  Ðconviction€to€fourth€offense€DUI;€(2)€that€because€the€Georgia€DUI€statute€is€not€similar€to€theÐ <Œ ÐTennessee€statute,Ô#†¼Au»XX ¹’#ÔÔ‡X ¹X»¼AuÔ€the€trial€court€should€not€have€used€his€prior€DUI€convictions€from€Georgia€forÐ (x Ðenhancement€purposes;€(3)€that€the€implied€consent€form€used€in€this€case€was€unconstitutional;€andÐ d Ð(4)€that€the€1995€amendment€to€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„30„Ð P Ð201€to„310,€rendered€invalid€the€ruling€in€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268€(Tenn.€1987),€whichÐ ì< Ðheld€that€the€proper€procedure€for€collateral€attack€on€a€prior€DUI€conviction€was€through€the€Post„Ð Ø( ÐConviction€Procedure€Act.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmedÐ Ä ÐÓ½ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Au»àX ¹á#ÔÔ‡X ¹X.¼AuÔGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJerry€L.€Smithóó€and€òòThomas€T.Ð tÄ ÐÔ_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð `° ÐÌJerry€H.€Summers,€Chattanooga,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Perry€Ray€Davis.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Kathy€D.€Aslinger,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ #`" ÐThomas€Kimball,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Au»XX ¹E #ÔÔ‡X ¹X»¼AuÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Au»XX ¹Î #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X ¹X»¼AuÔà  àOn€September€30,€1998,€Officer€Karl€Lewis€was€driving€west€on€Cummings€Highway€inÐ ¬'ü"' ÐChattanooga€when€he€encountered€the€defendant€driving€on€the€wrong€side€of€the€road.€€OfficerÐ ˜(è#( ÐLewis€swerved€into€the€opposite€lane€of€traffic€to€avoid€being€struck,€turned€around,€and€thenÐ „)Ô$) Ðactivated€the€lights€and€siren€on€his€cruiser.€€He€observed€the€defendantððs€vehicle€collide€with€aÐ p*À%* Ðtruck,€strike€a€parked€car€in€a€parking€lot,€and€then€crash€into€the€front€of€a€grocery€store.Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý Ðà  àAfter€his€vehicle€came€to€a€stop,€the€defendant€refused€to€get€out.€€Officer€Lewis€removedÐ ° Ðâ âthe€defendant,€placed€him€on€the€ground,€and€handcuffed€him.€€The€officer€testified€at€trial€that€heÐ œì Ðimmediately€noticed€the€smell€of€alcohol€on€the€defendant€and€that€the€defendant€had€troubleÐ ˆØ Ðspeaking€clearly€and€maintaining€his€balance.€€It€was€his€opinion€that€the€defendant€was€too€impairedÐ tÄ Ðto€drive.€€The€defendant€agreed€to€submit€to€a€breathalyser€test,€which€indicated€a€blood€alcoholÐ `° Ðcontent€of€.27%.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àAs€proof€of€the€defendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions,€the€state€presented€certified€copies€ofÐ $ t Ðthree€convictions.€€An€October€of€1990€conviction€and€an€April€of€1992€conviction€occurred€in€DadeÐ  ` ÐCounty,€Georgia.€€A€January€1995€conviction€occurred€in€Marion€County,€Tennessee.Ð ü L  ÐÌÓ  Óò òI.Ð Ô$  Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€first€asserts€that€his€prior€DUI€convictions€are€facially€invalid€and,€thus,€cannotÐ À  Ðbe€used€to€enhance€his€conviction.€€In€òòState€v.€McClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€268,€272€(Tenn.€1987),€ourÐ ¬ü  Ðsupreme€court€ruled€that€a€facially€invalid€judgment€could€not€be€used€to€enhance€punishment€in€aÐ ˜è  Ðsubsequent€prosecution.€€Later,€this€court€concluded€that€ð ðthe€General€Assembly€did€not€intend€toÐ „Ô  Ðgive€credence€to€facially€invalid€foreign€convictions€when€a€court€would€not€do€so€with€a€similarÐ pÀ ÐTennessee€conviction.ðð€€òòState€v.€Whaleyóó,€982€S.W.2d€346,€348€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€January€1995€conviction€is€invalid€because€the€face€of€theÐ 4„ Ðjudgment€does€not€establish€compliance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„403(g)(1),Ð  p Ðwhich€provides€as€follows:Ð  \ ÐÌà8  àà ` àAny€person€convicted€of€an€initial€or€subsequent€offense€shall€be€advised,€inÐ ä4 Ðwriting,€of€the€penalty€for€second€and€subsequent€convictions,€and,€in€addition,€whenÐ Ð  Ðpronouncing€sentence€the€judge€shall€advise€the€defendant€of€the€penalties€forÐ ¼  Ðadditional€offenses.€€Written€notice€by€the€judge€shall€inform€the€defendant€that€aÐ ¨ø Ðconviction€for€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€committedÐ ”ä Ðin€another€state€shall€be€used€to€enhance€the€punishment€for€a€violation€of€ðð€55„10„Ð €Ð Ð401€committed€in€this€state.Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(g)(1).€€This€argument€cannot€be€a€basis€for€relief.€€First,€the€defendantÐ D!” Ðcites€no€authority€for€his€position€that€the€failure€to€document€compliance€with€this€statute€on€theÐ 0"€  Ðface€of€the€judgment€renders€the€judgment€facially€invalid.€€The€failure€to€cite€authority€operates€asÐ #l! Ða€waiver€of€the€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€27(a)(7);€òòState€v.€Eberhardtóó,€659€S.W.2d€807,€811€(Tenn.Ð $X" ÐCrim.€App.€1980).€€Second,€in€order€to€qualify€for€relief€from€a€judgment,€it€must€be€evident€fromÐ ô$D # Ðthe€document€that€the€convicting€court€lacked€jurisdiction.€€òòArcher€v.€Stateóó,€851€S.W.2d€157,€162Ð à%0!$ Ð(Tenn.€1993)€(citing€òòState€ex€rel.€Holbrook€v.€Bomaróó,€211€Tenn.€243,€247,€364€S.W.2d€887,€889Ð Ì&"% Ð(1963)).€€The€failure€of€the€judgment€to€note€compliance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ ¸'#& Ðâ â55„10„403(g)(1)€does€not,€in€any€way,€implicate€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Marion€County€GeneralÐ ¤(ô#' ÐSessions€Court.òòóó׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×òòóó€€Any€failure€to€comply€with€the€procedural€requirements€of€the€statute€would€notÐ ° Ðâ ârender€a€judgment€facially€invalid.€€In€our€view,€the€defendantððs€1995€conviction€for€DUI€is€faciallyÐ œì Ðvalid€and€could,€therefore,€be€used€as€a€predicate€conviction€for€DUI,€fourth€offense.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€DUI€convictions€in€the€state€of€Georgia€in€1990€and€1992€areÐ `° Ðfacially€invalid€because€the€judgments€do€not€show€that€the€convicting€court€complied€with€theÐ L œ Ðrequirements€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€11,€òòState€v.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2dÐ 8 ˆ Ð337€(Tenn.€1977),€and€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395€U.S.€238€(1969).€€Initially,€Ô‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôthe€documents€in€theÐ $ t Ðrecord€pertaining€to€the€1990€and€1992€convictions€establish€on€their€face€that€the€convicting€courtÐ  ` Ðhad€jurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€and€the€parties.€€Thus,€ð ðððwe€must€indulge€every€intendmentÐ ü L  Ðin€favor€of€the€validity€of€the€judgments.ðððð€€òòMcClintockóó,€732€S.W.2d€at€271€(quoting€òòSmith€v.€Leedyóó,Ð è 8  Ð42€Tenn.€App.€117,€123,€299€S.W.2d€29,€31€(1956)).Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹W"#Ô€€Moreover,€each€of€the€judgments€contains€onÐ Ô$  Ðits€face€a€written€waiver€of€the€defendantððs€right€to€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tansilóó,€72€S.W.3d€665,€667Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001)€(citing€Ô‡X ¹XXX ¹ÔòòBurgett€v.€Texasóó,€389€U.S.€109€(1967),€andÔ#†X ¹XXX ¹c%#Ô€holding€that€ð ðÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹ÔwrittenÐ ¬ü  Ðwaiver€of€the€right€to€counsel€is€necessary€for€the€facial€validity€of€the€judgment€because€the€UnitedÐ ˜è  ÐStates€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€in€the€context€of€using€a€prior€conviction€against€a€defendant€toÐ „Ô  Ðsupport€guilt€or€enhanced€punishment€for€another€offense,€a€record€of€a€conviction€that€does€notÐ pÀ Ðshow€either€the€existence€of€counsel€or€the€waiver€of€counsel€is€presumptively€voidðð).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€other€rights€that€a€defendant€necessarily€waives€when€entering€a€guilty€plea,Ð 4„ Ðour€supreme€court€has€held€that€the€failure€to€fully€advise€a€defendant€of€those€rights€ð ðmerely€rendersÐ  p Ðthe€related€judgment€voidable,€not€void.ðð€€òòState€v.€NealóóÔ#†X ¹XXX ¹ç%#Ô,€810€S.W.2d€131,€134€(Tenn.€1991).€€Here,Ð  \ Ðthe€defendant€does€not€contend€that€the€convicting€court€failed€to€comply€with€Rule€11,€òòMackeyóó,€orÐ øH ÐòòBoykinóó€but€instead€argues€that€the€judgments€are€invalid€because€compliance€is€not€documented€onÐ ä4 Ðtheir€faces.€€This€cannot€be€a€basis€for€relief.€€Even€if€the€trial€court€had€failed€to€fully€comply€withÐ Ð  Ðthe€rules€regarding€the€acceptance€of€guilty€pleas,€the€convictions€would€be€voidable€and€not€void.Ô‡X ¹XXX ¹Ô€Ð ¼  ÐMoreover,€if€the€pleas€in€those€convictions€had€been€involuntarily€made,€which€the€defendant€doesÐ ¨ø Ðnot€contend,€the€convictions€would€have€been€voidable,€not€void.Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹r+#Ô€€Certainly€the€1990€and€1992Ð ”ä ÐGeorgia€convictions€are€not€facially€invalid.Ð €Ð ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.Ð X ¨ ÐÓ  Óó óà  àThe€defendant€next€contends€that€the€trial€court€was€prohibited€from€using€the€GeorgiaÐ D!” Ðconvictions€to€enhance€his€sentence€because€the€DUI€statutes€of€Georgia€and€Tennessee€are€notÐ 0"€  Ðsimilar.€€This€court€has€considered,€and€expressly€rejected,€this€argument.€€òòSeeóó€òòWhaleyóó,€982€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð346€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€In€òòWhaleyóó,€this€court€held€as€follows:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àÔ‡X ¹XXX ¹Ôà ` àUpon€review€of€the€plain€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55-10-403(l),€weÐ à%0!$ Ðfind€nothing€suggesting€that€the€DUI€statute€of€a€foreign€state€must€be€similar€to€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðof€Tennessee's€in€order€to€be€used€as€a€sentence€enhancer.€€It€appears€that€the€stateÐ ¸'#& Ðlegislature€simply€intended€to€enhance€the€punishment€for€repeat€DUI€offenders.€Ð ° ÐThis€Court€has€held€that€a€defendant's€prior€DUI€conviction€from€another€state€couldÐ œì Ðbe€used€to€enhance€the€sentence€for€a€defendant's€subsequent€DUI€conviction€inÐ ˆØ ÐTennessee.€€òòState€v.€Reaóó,€865€S.W.2d€923,€924€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€ThisÐ tÄ Ðholding€remains€true€regardless€of€how€DUI€is€defined€in€a€foreign€state.Ð`°Ð Ð  ÐÌòòWhaleyóó,€982€S.W.2d€at€347Ô#†X ¹XXX ¹/#Ô.€€The€statute€at€issue€in€òòWhaleyóó€provided€that€ð ð[f]or€purposes€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðenhancing€the€punishment€of€a€person€convicted€of€violating€55„10„401,€the€state€shall€use€aÐ $ t Ðconviction€for€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€that€occurred€in€anotherÐ  ` Ðstate.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(1)€(1990).€€The€current€statute€states€that€ð ð[w]ritten€notice€byÐ ü L  Ðthe€judge€shall€inform€the€defendant€that€a€conviction€for€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influenceÐ è 8  Ðof€an€intoxicant€committed€in€another€state€shall€be€used€to€enhance€the€punishment€for€a€violationÐ Ô$  Ðof€ðð€55„10„401€committed€in€this€state.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(g)(1)(1997).€€In€our€view,Ð À  Ðthis€legislative€change€does€not€mandate€a€departure€from€the€ruling€in€òòWhaleyóó.€€Both€statutesÐ ¬ü  Ðauthorize€out„of„state€convictions€to€be€used€for€enhanced€punishment€for€subsequent€DUIÐ ˜è  Ðconvictions€in€Tennessee.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€ruling€in€òòWhaleyóó€should€not€control€because€the€ruling€wasÐ \¬ Ðcontrary€to€legislative€intent.€€In€support€of€this€contention,€the€defendant€submitted€legislativeÐ H˜ Ðhistory€indicating€that€a€similarity€requirement€was€contained€in€the€original€draft€of€the€bill.€€TheÐ 4„ Ðrequirement,€however,€was€removed€before€the€bill€was€actually€passed.Ð  p ÐÌò òÓ  ÓIII.Ð øH Ðó óÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€also€claims€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€his€motion€to€suppress€theÐ ä4 Ðresults€of€the€breathalyser€test.€€He€asserts€that€the€implied€consent€form€failed€to€apprize€him€of€theÐ Ð  Ðconsequences€of€submitting€to€a€chemical€test€to€determine€his€blood€alcohol€content,€therebyÐ ¼  Ðpreventing€a€voluntary,€knowing,€and€intelligent€decision€to€submit€to€the€test.€€Thus,€he€contends,Ð ¨ø Ðthe€implied€consent€form€is€unconstitutional.€€This€court€has€previously€rejected€an€identicalÐ ”ä Ðargument€in€reviewing€a€form€substantially€similar€to€that€at€issue€here:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€form€clearly€indicates€that€the€purpose€of€the€test€is€to€determine€the€drugÐ X ¨ Ðand€alcohol€content€of€the€accusedððs€blood.€€If€the€results€of€this€test€were€not€goingÐ D!” Ðto€be€used€to€prosecute€the€charged€crime,€there€would€be€no€purpose€forÐ 0"€  Ðadministering€the€test.€€This€Court€has€held€that€admonitions€prior€to€submitting€toÐ #l! Ðblood€alcohol€level€test€are€not€required€to€sustain€a€valid€consent.€€The€averageÐ $X" Ðperson€understands€that€the€results€of€a[n]€intoximeter€test€will€be€used€against€them.€Ð ô$D # ÐThe€form€is€neither€vague€or€misleading.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌòòWhaleyóó,€982€S.W.2d€at€349€(citing€òòKing€v.€Stateóó,€598€S.W.2d€834€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)).€€Again,Ð ¸'#& Ðwe€see€no€reason€to€depart€from€this€conclusion.Ð  ¤(ô#' Ðò òÓ  ÓIV.ó óÐ ° ÐÓ  Óà  àFinally,€the€defendant€asserts€that€the€1995€amendment€to€the€Post„Conviction€Act€renderedÐ œì Ðinvalid€the€ruling€in€òòMcClintockóó.€€In€òòMcClintockóó,€our€supreme€court€ruled€as€follows:Ð ˆØ ÐÌà8  à[u]nless€invalid€on€its€face,€a€prior€judgment€of€conviction€in€a€court€with€personalÐ `° Ðand€subject€matter€jurisdiction€cannot€be€collaterally€attacked€in€a€subsequentÐ L œ Ðproceeding€in€which€the€challenged€conviction€is€used€to€enhance€punishment.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðauthorized€route€for€attacking€a€facially€valid,€final€judgment€of€conviction€is€by€theÐ $ t ÐPost„Conviction€Procedure€Act.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌ732€S.W.2d€at€272.€€The€defendant€contends€that€this€rule€is€no€longer€valid€because€the€Post„Ð è 8  ÐConviction€Procedure€Act€now€contains€a€one„year€statute€of€limitations€for€the€filing€of€post„Ð Ô$  Ðconviction€petitions.€€On€two€separate€occasions,€this€court€has€expressly€rejected€this€argument.€€òòSeeóóÐ À  ÐòòState€v.€Don€Palmer€Blackóó,€No.€03C01„9812„CR„00424€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Dec.€9,Ð ¬ü  Ð1999);€òòState€v.€Phillip€Todd€Swordsóó,€No.€03C01„9807„CR„00239€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,Ð ˜è  ÐApr.€14,€1999)òòóó€(where€the€court€ð ðdecline[d]€to€hold€the€rule€announced€in€òòMcClintockóóÐ „Ô  Ðunconstitutional€following€the€institution€of€a€statute€of€limitations€for€post„conviction€petitions").€Ð pÀ ÐThus,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð \¬ Ðò òÌó óà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ð 4„ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE