ÿWPC  0# °UN» %  0(b7w@?4“¢ 0Jª 0Tô 0^H 0h¦ 0r 0|€ 0†ü 0‚ 1u 0d‡U>ë 0@) D3i Bœ U*¹ B)ã DC AMO 4œ v~Ð AQN ÆŸ 0De 0D© D/í BvÓ9˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- ()*U+V,e-.D/D0Ó€<B\J#3|x<2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò""""'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd* %Cþÿ << Gÿÿ *Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òOctober€20,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdStyl{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  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€5XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€*ÙßR€&'%A1-j|¹` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€JACKSONÌÌAUGUST€SESSION,€1997ÌÌ€ÌÌÓ  ÓDELVIN€L.€DONEHUE,à àà àà à)€€€€€€C.C.A.€NO.€02C01„9701„CR„00034Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àà àAppellant,ò òà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€HON.€JOHN€P.€COLTON,€JR.,ó óÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)€€€€€€€JUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò òà à)ó ó€€€€€€€Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àò òà à)€€€€€€€(POST„CONVICTION)€Ìó óÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òD.€TYLER€KELLY€€€à àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óHARDEE,€MARTIN€&€JAYNESà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€98ÌJackson,€TN€38302ò ò€à àà àà àKENNETH€W.€RUCKERÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJOHN€W.€PIEROTTIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALANDA€HORNE€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Street,€Suite€301Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103à0 àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€#°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€#ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àà àAppellant,€Delvin€L.€Donehue,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏdismissal€by€the€Shelby€County€Criminal€Court€of€his€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€The€petition€was€filed€òòproóó€òòseóó€and€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petitionÏwithout€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€The€trial€court€based€its€dismissal€upon€the€factÏthat€the€petition€was€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€CounselÏwas€appointed€to€represent€petitioner€in€this€court.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÏtrial€court.ÌÌà àà àA€brief€history€of€this€case€is€necessary€to€address€the€issuesÏraised€by€Appellant.€€On€March€24,€1994,€the€Shelby€County€grand€juryÏreturned€an€indictment€against€Appellant€charging€him€in€Count€1€with€theÏoffense€of€attempted€felony€murder€committed€in€the€perpetration€of€robbery,€andÏin€Count€2€with€the€offense€of€attempted€first€degree€murder.€€Both€offensesÏwere€alleged€to€have€occurred€on€the€same€date€and€against€the€same€victim.€ÏFrom€this€sparse€record,€it€is€also€apparent€that€Appellant€was€charged€withÏaggravated€robbery€and€theft€over€$10,000.00€in€separate€indictments.€€ÌÌà àà àPursuant€to€a€negotiated€plea€agreement€on€October€4,€1994,€ÏAppellant€pled€guilty€to€Count€1€of€the€indictment€wherein€he€was€charged€withÏattempted€felony€murder€and€received€a€sentence€of€fifteen€(15)€years€in€theÏDepartment€of€Correction.€€The€judgment€entered€the€same€date€reflects€that€thisÏsentence€was€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€with€sentences€for€convictions€Ïpursuant€to€guilty€pleas€to€theft€over€$10,000.00€and€aggravated€robbery.€ÏOther€than€in€the€indictment,€Count€2€(charging€Appellant€with€attempted€firstÏdegree€murder€of€the€victim),€is€not€otherwise€mentioned€in€the€record€in€thisÏappeal.€€Also,€the€sentences€received€by€Appellant€for€the€convictions€of€theftÏover€$10,000.00€and€aggravated€robbery€are€not€set€forth€in€the€record.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€November€4,€1996,€Appellant€filed€in€the€Criminal€Court€ofÏShelby€County€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€this€petition,€AppellantÏstated€that€he€was€confined€at€the€South€Central€Correctional€Facility€in€CliftonÏ[Wayne€County],€Tennessee.€€€The€basis€for€the€request€for€relief€by€AppellantÏis€the€decision€of€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Kimbroughóó,€924€S.W.2d€888Ï(Tenn.€1996),€wherein€the€court€ruled€ð ðthe€offense€of€attempted€felony€murderÏdoes€not€exist€in€Tennessee.ðð€€òòKimbroughóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€892.€€The€decision€inÏòòKimbroughóó€was€filed€June€3,€1996.€€ÌÌà àà àAs€of€May€10,€1995,€Appellant€had€one€(1)€year€from€that€date€inÏwhich€to€file€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€or€the€claim€would€be€barred.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a).€€There€are€three€exceptions€to€this€provision,Ïhowever,€none€of€the€exceptions€apply€in€Appellantððs€case.€€The€claim€is€notÏbased€upon€a€final€ruling€of€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutional€rightÏthat€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€Appellantððs€guilty€plea.€ÏNeither€is€the€claim€based€upon€new€scientific€evidence€establishing€that€theÏAppellant€is€actually€innocent€of€the€offense€for€which€he€was€convicted.€ÏFinally,€the€claim€does€not€involve€a€previous€conviction€which€has€been€held€toÏbe€invalid€which€was€used€to€enhance€the€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àBefore€this€court,€Appellant€presents€three€issues.€€He€argues€thatÏthe€trial€court€erred€dismissing€the€petition€because:€(1)€Appellantððs€conviction€forÏattempted€felony€murder€is€void€due€to€the€trial€court€lacking€subject€matterÏjurisdiction;€(2)€the€statute€of€limitations€does€not€bar€the€petition€becauseÏòòKimbroughóó€established€a€new€constitutional€rule€which€must€be€appliedÏretroactively;€and€(3)€the€statute€of€limitations€in€Appellantððs€case€violates€hisÏright€to€due€process.ÌÌà àà àWith€regard€to€his€first€issue,€we€disagree€that€the€issue€of€a€lack€ofÏsubject€matter€jurisdiction€can€be€properly€litigated€in€a€petition€for€post„convictionÍrelief€which€is€time€barred.€€This€does€not€fall€within€one€of€the€statutoryÏexceptions€to€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„202(b),€specifically€states€that€ð ðNo€court€shall€haveÏjurisdiction€to€consider€a€petition€filed€after€[expiration€of€the€statute€of€limitations]ððÏunless€one€of€the€specified€exceptions€applies.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.ÌÌà àà àFurthermore,€we€disagree€with€the€Appellant€that€a€newÏconstitutional€right€was€established€in€òòKimbroughóó.€€The€ruling€in€òòKimbroughóó€wasÏbased€upon€statutory€construction,€and€was€not€resolved€upon€anyÏconstitutional€issue.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€also€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àIn€Appellantððs€third€issue,€he€argues€that,€under€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,Ï845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992),€and€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.Ï1995),€that€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€his€case€violates€his€rightsÏto€due€process€guaranteed€by€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòSandsóó,€our€supreme€court€summarized€the€basic€rule€fromÏòòBurfordóó€to€be:ÌÓÓà8 àIn€certain€circumstances,€due€process€prohibits€the€strict€applicationÏof€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€a€petitionerððs€claimÏwhen€the€grounds€for€relief,€whether€legal€or€factual,€arise€after€theÍð ðfinal€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appealÏis€takenðð€„„€or,€in€other€words,€when€the€grounds€arise€after€theÏpoint€at€which€the€limitations€period€would€normally€have€begun€toÏrun.€€In€applying€the€òòBurfordóó€rule€to€specific€factual€situations,€courtsÏshould€utilize€a€three„step€process:€(1)€determine€when€theÏlimitations€period€would€normally€have€begun€to€run;€(2)€determineÏwhether€the€grounds€for€relief€actually€arose€after€the€limitationsÏperiod€would€normally€have€commenced;€and€(3)€if€the€grounds€areÏð ðlater€arising,ðð€determine€if,€under€the€facts€of€the€case,€a€strictÏapplication€of€the€limitations€period€would€effectively€deny€theÏpetitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€present€the€claim.ÌÌÌòòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àIn€òòSandsóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€application€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€in€that€case€did€not€violate€the€petitionerððs€due€process€rights€evenÏthough€in€his€1977€trial,€the€trial€court€purportedly€shifted€the€burden€of€proof€toÏthe€petitioner€in€violation€of€the€United€States€Supreme€Courtððs€holding€inÏòòSandstrom€v.€Montanaóó,€442€U.S.€510,€(1979).€€In€doing€so,€our€supreme€courtÏfound€in€òòSandsóó€that€the€òòSandstromóó€claim€of€that€petitioner€was€not€a€ð ðlaterÏarising€groundðð€as€set€forth€by€òòBurfordóó.€€Our€supreme€court€also€noted€that€inÏòòMcBee€v.€Grantóó,€763€F.2d€811€(6th€Cir.€1985),€that€the€Sixth€Circuit€Court€ofÏAppeals€stated€that€a€ð ðòòSandstromóó„type€claim€of€error€in€jury€instructions€was€notÏð ðnovel,ðð€and€should€have€been€objected€to€by€defendant€in€the€1971€trial.ðð€ÏòòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€302.ÌÌà àà àIn€light€of€the€above,€we€note€that€our€court€filed€its€opinion€in€òòStateÏof€Tennessee€v.€Brian€Keith€Kimbroughóó€on€November€2,€1994.€€In€a€two„oneÏdecision,€this€court€held€that€the€ð ðcrime€of€attempted€felony€murder€does€not€existÏin€Tennessee.ðð€€See€òòState€of€Tennessee€v.€Brian€Keith€Kimbroughóó,€No.€02C01„9308„CR„00182€slip€op.€at€7,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Criminal€Appeals,ÏJackson,€Nov.€2,€1994)€(Affirmed€òòState€v.€Kimbroughóó,€924€S.W.2d€888€(Tenn.Ï1996).€€As€noted€above,€Appellant€had€one€(1)€year€from€May€1,€1995€in€whichÏto€file€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€This€courtððs€opinion€in€òòKimbroughóó,€wasÏfiled€approximately€18€months€before€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run€inÏAppellantððs€case.€€Therefore,€the€issue€set€forth€in€the€supreme€courtððs€decisionÏin€òòKimbroughóó€was€not€the€type€of€ð ðlater€arising€issueðð€contemplated€by€òòBurfordóó.€ÌœÌà àà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€Judge