WPC1 # V %ag 0oUN5 4   w 0J 0T 0^2 0h 0r 0|j 0 0l 1u 0dqU>U*B)=DCf AM Bv~vF D3 0@L AO 0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLhX(j$` ` 4XTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalT(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regularڃ"3|xH&NOPDQRSDTDUDVWDXYDZ[D\D]^D_`abDcDdefgh{ijk[lDmnopLqDrӀ~2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G d  !  #d#  `   4  X \RA'\  !!   YYY FILED!X December12,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.!AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .   `   4  X \RA'\  7 Xdd7  !R$&#A1-j|` - `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ OCTOBER1997SESSIONDANNYGARRETT,  * C.C.A.#03C019603CR00111 Appellant,   * KNOXCOUNTYVS.     * Hon.RayL.Jenkins,JudgeSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  * (PostConviction)̛̜ Appellee.   *ForAppellant:    ForAppellee:DannyGarrett,ProSe   JohnKnoxWalkup#123195     AttorneyGeneralandReporterNortheastCorrectionCenterP.O.Box5000    TimothyF.BehanMountainCity,TN37683   AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493      RandallE.Nichols      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      CityCountyBuilding      Knoxville,TN37902OPINIONFILED:______________________AFFIRMED̀GARYR.WADE,JUDGE@ OPINION  Thedefendant,DannyGarrett,appealsthetrialcourt'sdenialofpostconvictionrelief.Thesingleissuepresentedforreviewiswhetherthepetitionwasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.  Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.  OnOctober5,1987,thepetitionerenteredpleasofguilttoarmedrobberyandassaultwithintenttocommitmurder.ThetrialcourtimposedaRangeI,fifteenyearsentenceforeachcharge.Therewasnoappeal.OnMarch4,1994,thepetitionerreceivedasentenceinfederalcourtforpossessionofafirearm;his1987sentenceswereusedtoenhancethelengthofsentence.Twomonthslater,thepetitionerfiledhisfirstpetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Thetrialcourtdismissedthepetitionasuntimelyfiled.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102(repealed1995).Thiscourtaffirmedondirectappeal.DannyE.Garrettv.State,No.03C019411CR00429(Tenn.Crim.App.,atKnoxville,July25,1995).  Thispetition,thepetitioner'ssecond,wasfiledonOctober25,1995.Thetrialcourtdismissedthepetitiononthebasisthatitwasbarredbythestatuteofthelimitations.Inthisappeal,thepetitionerarguesthathisconstitutionalrightstodueprocessprecludethestatuteoflimitationsasadefense.Wedisagree.  InBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204,208(Tenn.1992),oursupremecourtheldthatincertainsituationsapplicationofthestatuteoflimitationsinapostconvictionproceedingwouldviolatedueprocess.Indeterminingwhethertherehasbeenaviolationofdueprocess,theessentialquestioniswhetherthetimeperiodallowedbylawprovidespetitionerafairandreasonableopportunitytofilesuit.Id.InBurford,thepetitionercouldnotfilewithinthethreeyearlimitationabsentadeterminationonhispriorpostconvictionpetition.OursupremecourtruledthatMr.Burfordwas"caughtinaproceduraltrapandunabletoinitiatelitigation...despitetheapproachofthethreeyearlimitation."Id.Therewasnosuchtraphere.   InSandsv.State,903S.W.2d297(Tenn.1995),oursupremecourtfurtherdefinedhowtoapplytheBurfordtest.Courtsmust8 8 (1)determinewhenthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun;(2)determinewhetherthegroundsforreliefactuallyaroseafterthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced;and(3)ifthegroundsare"laterarising,"determineif,underthefactsofthecase,astrictapplicationofthelimitationsperiodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim.Inmakingthisfinaldetermination,courtsshouldcarefullyweighthepetitioner'slibertyinterestin"collaterallyattackingconstitutionalviolationsoccurringduringtheconvictionprocess,"againstthestate'sinterestinpreventingthelitigationof"staleandfraudulentclaims."Sands,903S.W.2dat301(citationsomitted)(quotingBurford,845S.W.2dat207,208).  Bytheuseoftheseguidelines,wehavedeterminedthatthestatuteoflimitationswouldhavebeguntorunonOctober5,1987.Essentially,thepetitionerarguesthathispleaswerenotknowinglyandvoluntarilyentered.Whilethatwouldhavebeenabasisforpostconvictionrelief,ifestablishedbytheproof,thosegroundswereavailablewellbeforethelimitationsperiodcommenced.Thus,thepetitioner'sclaimsfailtomeetthesecondrequirementofSands.  Recently,oursupremecourtruledthatthe1995PostConvictionProcedureAct,whichreducedthestatuteoflimitationstoaperiodofoneyear,didnotreviveanyactionwhichhadbeenbarredbythepreviousstatuteoflimitations.See%  ArnoldCarterv.State,____S.W.2d____,No.03S019612CR00117,slipop.at6(Tenn.,atKnoxville,Sept.8,1997).Thus,anyargumentthatthenewActallowedaoneyearopportunityfornewfilingslacksmerit.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030202.̀  Accordingly,thejudgmentisaffirmed.      ________________________________      GaryR.Wade,JudgeCONCUR:_____________________________DavidH.Welles,Judge_____________________________JerryL.Smith,Judge