WPC  <6- DZq ډB.@W5>dzqϮX6WzW^7ƽzftR#-Sg'"O^iHu{=rcfT".f8l4^j9Li N1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E3 3 3 3 3 3 5 = = E M U ] e e e e 0m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m B HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular( Z(Times New Roman H1 h_B0:i+003|xU McIntire Crimw]here1245678Document1zzSDUNumber5 d !USUS.,  _XXXXXX8<XXdd8  @KK#XX\#XXINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE#XX#XXԈ  #XX#XX #XX#XX%    %UDAVIDE.GARRISONv.%  %#XX6#XX STATEOFTENNESSEE #XX#XX#d=#d 0 b@*#XX?#XXԈ@ #XX# AppealfromtheCriminal%  Court%lfor%  % ԀDavidsonCounty  T @' ' No.% ! %!% " %" Ԁ2000C1424CherylA.Blackburn,Judge  > @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈    @ No.% # %#M200302137CCAR3PCFiledOctober8,_2004_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<x` A y   ThePetitioner,DavidE.Garrison,appealsthetrialcourt'sdismissalofhispetitionforpost Z  convictionrelief.TheStatehasfiledamotionrequestingthatthisCourtaffirmthetrialcourt's C denialofreliefpursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.ThePetitionerfiled ,| hispetitionoutsidethestatuteoflimitations.Accordingly,theState'smotionisgranted,andthe e judgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. N  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmedPursuanttoRule20,Rulesof   theCourtofCriminalAppeals    DAVIDH.WELLES#X<XXX#XXXX<,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJERRYL.SMITH#X<XXX #XXXX<,J.,and  ROBERTW._WEDEMEYER_#X<XXX; #XXXX<,J.,joined. v DavidM.Hopkins,fortheappellant. H PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;MichelleChapmanMcIntire,Assistant j AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.  S @! MEMORANDUMOPINION  !%!   #X<XXX #XXXX<@* #X<XXXn #ԈXXXX<  Thismatterisbeforethecourtuponmotionoftheappellee,theStateofTennessee,toaffirm ## thejudgmentinthiscasepursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.The $$ petitionerisappealingthetrialcourt'sdismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,following z% % therevocationofhisprobation. c&!&   Petitionerwasindictedforonecountofespeciallyaggravated_kidnapping_Ԁandthreecounts 5(#( #X<XXX #XXXX<ofaggravatedrape.OnJuly30,2001,thepetitionerpledguiltytotheamendedchargeofaggravated )n$) assaultpursuanttoapleabargain.Petitionerwassentencedtoeightyearsasarangeoneoffender, *W%* pleadingoutoftherangeforaclass cfelony.Theremainingcountsweredismissedaspartofthe *@&+ pleabargain.Petitionerssentencewassuspendedallbuttimeserved,andhewasplacedon +)', supervisedprobationforaperiodofsevenyears.OnJanuary22,2003,thetrialcourtrevoked ,(- petitionersprobation,andhissentencewasplacedintoeffect. -(. _ԇ  PetitionerfiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionreliefonMay27,2003,attemptingto  challengehisconvictionsbyguiltypleaonJuly30,2001.Specifically,petitionercontendedthat  hisguiltypleawasnotknowinglyandvoluntarilyentered;thatcounselmisrepresentedthatifhis  probationwasrevoked,hewouldreceiveallofthetimehespentonprobationasjailcredit;thattrial k counselfailedtoadequatelyinvestigatethefactsofhiscase;andthattrialcounselcoercedhiminto T pleadingguiltyonthedayofhistrial.Thetrialcourtinitiallydeterminedthatthepetitionforpost =  convictionreliefmightbetimelyfiled,appointedcounsel,andallowedappointedcounseltofilean & v amendedpetition.TheStatefiledamotiontodismiss,andthepetitionerfiledaresponse.Thetrial  _ courtultimatelydeterminedthatthepetitionwasuntimely,asitwasfiledmorethanoneyearafter  H thepetitionersguiltypleaonJuly30,2001.Thecourtfurtherdeterminedthatwhere,ashere,the  1  courtputtheoriginalsentenceintoeffectfollowingtheprobationrevocationwithoutalteringthe    sentence,thetimeperiodforfilingapetitionforpostconvictionwasnotextended.   #X<XXXL#XXXX<  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4030102(a)providesthatapetitionforpostconviction   reliefmustbefiledwithinoneyearfromfinaljudgment.Theappellantfiledhispetitionbeyondthe n  timeallowedbythestatute,andnoneoftheenumeratedexceptionstothistimelimitapplyinthis W  case.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102(b).#X<XXX#XXXX<UnderthePost-ConvictionProcedureAct,% ' exceptions @ tothestatuteoflimitationsareexplicitlysetforth,i.e.,(1)claimsbaseduponanewruleof )y constitutionallawapplicabletoapetitioner'scase,(2)claimsbaseduponnewscientificevidence b showinginnocence,and(3)claimsbaseduponsentencesthatwereenhancedbecauseofaprevious K convictionandthepreviousconvictionwassubsequentlyfoundtobeillegal.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. 4 #X<XXX#XXXX<#X<XXXu#XXXX<4030102(b)(1)(3)(2003Repl.).Petitionerhasfailedtoassertoneoftheseexceptionsfortolling  thestatute.Hecitesnonewconstitutionalrule,referstononewscientificevidence,andmakesno  claimthatanearlierconvictionhasbeenoverturned.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.#X<XXX#XXXX<#X<XXXB#XXXX<4030106(g)(2003  Repl.).Moreover,thepetitionersprobationrevocationdidnotgiverisetoaclaimforpost  convictionrelieforarerunningoftheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.SeeYoungv.State,101 q S.W.3d430(Tenn.Crim.App.2002)explainingthatanorderrevokingsuspensionofsentenceand Z probationdoesnotimposeanewsentencesubjecttocollateralattackundertheTennesseePost C ConvictionProcedureAct.AsthecourtcontemplatedinYoung,therevocationofprobationmay ,| occurlongaftertheoneyearstatuteoflimitationshasexpiredforattackoftheconvictionand e originalsentence,id.at432,whichiswhatoccurredinthiscase. N   Petitionerarguesthatthestatuteoflimitationsshouldbetolledbydueprocessconsiderations !   pursuanttoStatev.Williams,44S.W.3d464(Tenn.2001).PetitionercitestoWilliamsandstates " ! that [w]herecircumstancesbeyondthepetitionerscontrolprecludehimfromactivelyraisinghis #" postconvictionclaims,thestatuteoflimitationsshouldbetolled.Petitionerthenstatesthatan $# attorneysmisrepresentation,eitherattributabletodeceptionorothermisconduct,wouldbebeyond t% $ adefendantscontrolandthereforetollingofthestatuteoflimitationswouldbeapplicable. ]&!% Specifically,petitionercontendsthathedidnotknowtheeffectsofhisguiltyplea,duetotrial F'"& counselsmisrepresentations,untilafterhisprobationrevocationhearingonJanuary22,2003. /(#' Notwithstandingpetitionersattempttobringhiscaseundertheumbrellaofdueprocesstolling )h$( contemplatedbyWilliams,thefactsofthiscasesimplydonotwarranttolling.The *Q%) misrepresentationsbycounselinWilliamsmadeitimpossibleforthatpetitionertofilehispost *:&* convictionpetitionbecausepetitionerbelievedhisdirectappealwasongoing.Id.at47071.Inthis +#'+ case,petitionergivesnoexplanationastowhyitwasimpossibleforhimtolearnofthealleged  misrepresentationsandtimelyfilehispetition.Instead,hesimplystatesthathedidnotlearnof  misrepresentationsmadebycounselpriortoorathisguiltypleahearinguntilafterhisprobation  wasrevoked.Thepetitionerfailstoassertanycircumstancesthatwerebeyondhiscontrolthat k precludedhimfromactivelyraisinghispostconvictionclaims.Accordingly,tollingdoesnotapply. T   Finally,petitionersclaimthathewasnot incustodyasrequiredbythePostConviction & v ProcedureActwhileservingprobationalsofails.Forpurposesofpostconviction, onecouldbe  _ presumedtobeincustodysolongasthereisanypossibilityofrestraintonliberty,andthereis  H adangeronemightsufferanycollateralconsequences.Wattv.State,894S.W.2d307(Tenn.  1  Crim.App.1994).Accordingly,petitionerssupervisedprobationplacespetitionerincustodyfor    purposesofthepostconvictionstatute.Petitionerhadoneyearfromthedateofthefinaljudgment   tofilehispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,andhefailedtodoso.Thetrialcourtwascorrectin   dismissingthepetitionforpostconvictionrelief.   #X<XXX#XXXX<  Accordingly,thestate'smotiontoaffirmisherebygranted.Thejudgmentisaffirmedin W  accordancewithRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Becausetheappellantisindigent, @ costsaretaxedtotheState. )y    `     h        `     h     ____________________________________     `     h     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE     `     h     #X<XXX.#