ÿWPCÖ …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµbùw@ 4A U d 0ˆl 0Dô 0J8 0T‚ D3Ö 0^ 0hg 0rÏ 0|A 0†½ 0C 1uÓ 0dHU>¬U *êB)DC= B€ AM1ê 0@H[=£v~àvÓ^ AO1Æ€ 0DF D/Š B¹˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò- ù- Å{ÆÇEÈÉ[ÊÏÐDÑÒÓ€Úƒç"3|xÝ(8(3I¸$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô****'ÿÿdxd2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd d€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 'Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ8,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔ€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„7„103€(1980);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„30„202,€„206(b)€(Supp.Ï1996).Ì 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ôÔ€The€trial€courtððs€order€denying€the€post„conviction€petition€indicates€that€the€PetitionerÏpleaded€guilty€to€armed€robbery€in€cases€numbered€136995,€136997,€136999,€137001,€137003,Ï137005,€137007,€137009,€and€137011.€€The€pleas€were€entered€in€the€Criminal€Court€of€HamiltonÏCounty,€which€was€at€that€time€the€Sixth€Judicial€District€of€Tennessee.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ŠÔÔ€'ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ÖXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̜ـ€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›ÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœJULY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ó óÌÌÌœò òÓ  ÓKENNETH€EUGENE€à àà à)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9608„CR„00291ó óÌò òGOODMAN,›à àà àà àœ)›à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHAMILTON›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œDOUGLAS€A.€MEYERó ó›Ìœò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellee.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œHAMILTON€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœMELINDA€MEADOR›à àà àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌ234€Forks€of€the€River€Parkwayà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSevierville,€TN€37862Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àPETER€M.€COUGHLANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBILL€COXÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à600€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àChattanooga,€TN€37402„1972›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€'°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€'ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Petitioner,€Kenneth€Eugene€Goodman,€appeals€as€of€right€pursuantÏto€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€the€trial€courtððsÏdenial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€Petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòœse›óóÏð ðpetition€for€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€/€motion€to€vacate€judgmentðð€onÏNovember€16,€1995.€€The€trial€court€considered€the€petition€both€as€one€for€a€writÏof€error€coram€nobis€and€as€one€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€November€27,Ï1995,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€without€conducting€an€evidentiaryÏhearing,€finding€that€it€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.œ× ƒ. ××  ×›€€We€affirm€theÏjudgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€a€summary€of€the€history€of€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€TheÏrecord€in€this€case€is€sparse€and€consists€mainly€of€the€original€òòproóó€òòœse›óó€petitionÏand€the€trial€courtððs€order€denying€that€petition.€€As€a€result,€the€facts€recited€inÏthis€opinion€come€principally€from€information€contained€in€the€òòproóó€òòœse›óó€petition.€ÏThe€Petitioner€pleaded€guilty€to€nine€counts€of€armed€robbery€on€December€6,Í1978.œ× ƒ/ ××  ×›€€He€was€sentenced€to€ten€years€imprisonment€on€each€count€with€theÏsentences€to€run€concurrently.€€The€convictions€resulted€from€the€robbery€ofÏseveral€patrons€of€a€Pizza€Hut€restaurant€in€Chattanooga,€Tennessee.€€ThereÏis€nothing€in€the€record€concerning€the€circumstances€of€the€offenses.ÌÌà àIt€appears€that€the€Petitioner€had€been€convicted€of€a€criminal€offense€inÏKansas€shortly€before€he€pleaded€guilty€to€the€armed€robberies€in€Tennessee.€ÏAs€a€result,€after€his€conviction€and€sentencing€in€Tennessee,€he€was€returnedÏto€Kansas€to€serve€the€sentence€of€that€jurisdiction.€€According€to€the€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief,€his€Tennessee€sentences€were€ordered€to€run€concurrentÏwith€the€Kansas€sentence.€€The€Petitioner€was€paroled€by€Kansas€andÏreleased€to€the€custody€of€Tennessee€on€March€19,€1982.€€He€was€paroled€byÏTennessee€on€February€29,€1984.€€On€October€20,€1984,€he€was€released€fromÏhis€Tennessee€parole.ÌÌà àOn€January€7,€1992,€the€Petitioner€was€arrested€in€San€Diego,€CaliforniaÏon€a€charge€of€armed€robbery.€€He€was€subsequently€convicted€by€a€jury€ofÏarmed€robbery€and€of€being€an€habitual€criminal.€€According€to€the€petition,€hisÍprior€Tennessee€convictions€were€used€to€form€the€basis€for€his€habitual€criminalÏcharge€in€California.€€This€circumstance€led€to€the€Petitionerððs€current€complaintÏand€request€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌà àAccording€to€the€Petitioner,€when€he€pleaded€guilty€to€the€nine€counts€ofÏarmed€robbery€in€Tennessee,€it€was€agreed€that€the€convictions€could€not€beÏused€against€him€in€the€future.€€The€petition€explains€that€ð ðit€became€a€majorÏconcern€of€the€petitionerðð€[sic]€that€if€he€were€to€go€to€trial€without€moreÏsubstantial€evidence€to€prove€the€existence€of€his€alibi,€coupled€with€hisÏperception€of€counselððs€ability€and€demeanor,€it€was€quite€possible€that€he€mayÏbe€convicted€of€crimes€that€he€did€not€perpetrate.ðð€€As€a€result,€he€entered€intoÏplea€negotiations€with€the€district€attorney€generalððs€office.€€In€discussingÏpossible€plea€agreements,€the€Petitioner€had€three€main€concerns.€€The€firstÏwas€that€he€be€allowed€to€return€to€Kansas€to€serve€his€sentence€in€theÏjurisdiction€close€to€his€family€and€friends.€€The€second€was€that€his€TennesseeÏsentence€run€concurrent€with€the€Kansas€sentence€he€was€already€serving€soÏthat€he€would€not€have€to€serve€much€additional€time.€€His€third€and€principalÏconcern€was€ð ðhis€status€as€a€œ[sic]€habitual›€offender€based€on€pleading€guilty€toÏthe€robberies,€if€he€were€ever€to€get€into€trouble€again.ðð€€The€Petitioner€decidedÏthat€if€these€conditions€were€met,€then€ð ðhe€would€plead€no€contest€and€allow€theÏprosecutor€to€ððclear€his€books.ððððÌÌà àThe€petition€goes€on€to€state€that€after€meeting€with€the€prosecutor,Ïdefense€counsel€informed€the€Petitioner€that€his€terms€for€pleading€guilty€hadÏbeen€met.€€Defense€counsel€allegedly€told€the€Petitioner€that€ð ðwhen€the€judgeÏasked€if€there€were€any€promises€made€to€induce€the€plea,€the€petitioner€mustÏanswer€no€or€the€judge€could€not€accept€the€plea.€€Petitioner€went€beforeÏHonorable€Judge€Campbell€œCarden›€that€afternoon€and€did€as€he€had€beenÏinstructed€by€counsel,€entering€his€plea.ðð€€According€to€the€Petitioner,€it€was€hisÏunderstanding€that€the€terms€of€the€plea€agreement€dictated€that€his€TennesseeÏconvictions€could€not€be€used€against€him€in€the€future.ÌÌà àThus,€when€his€Tennessee€armed€robbery€convictions€were€used€to€formÏthe€basis€for€his€California€habitual€criminal€conviction,€the€Petitioner€complainedÏto€the€California€Court€of€Appeals€that€doing€so€violated€the€terms€of€hisÏTennessee€plea€agreement.€€According€to€the€Petitioner,€the€California€Court€ofÏAppeals€declined€to€reach€the€merits€of€his€argument,€holding€instead€that€anyÏchallenge€to€the€Tennessee€plea€agreement€must€be€pursued€in€Tennessee.€ÏAccordingly,€the€Petitioner€filed€his€ð ðpetition€for€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€/€motionÏto€vacate€judgmentðð€in€Tennessee€on€November€16,€1995.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€without€appointing€counsel€andÏwithout€conducting€an€evidentiary€hearing,€finding€that€the€petition€was€barredÏby€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Considering€the€petition€as€one€for€a€writ€of€errorÏcoram€nobis,€the€trial€court€found€that€it€was€time„barred€because€it€had€beenÏfiled€more€than€one€year€after€the€judgments€had€become€final.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€27„7„103.€€Considering€the€petition€as€one€for€post„conviction€relief,€theÏtrial€court€found€that€it€was€barred€by€the€previous€three„year€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed€1995).€€It€is€from€theÏtrial€courtððs€order€of€dismissal€that€the€Petitioner€now€appeals.ÌÌà àInitially€we€note€that,€on€appeal,€the€Petitioner€does€not€challenge€the€trialÏcourtððs€ruling€with€regard€to€considering€the€petition€as€one€for€a€writ€of€errorÏcoram€nobis.€€Instead,€the€Petitioner€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€findingÏthat€his€petition,€considering€it€as€one€for€post„conviction€relief,€was€barred€byÏthe€statute€of€limitations.€€At€the€time€the€Petitionerððs€convictions€became€final,€aÏprisoner€could€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€ð ðat€any€time€after€he€œha[d›]Ïexhausted€his€appellate€remedies€and€before€the€sentence€œha[d›]€expired€orÏœha[d›]€been€fully€satisfied.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1982).€€In€1986,€thisÏsection€was€amended€to€provide€that€a€ð ðprisoner€in€custody€under€sentence€ofÏa€court€of€this€state€must€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€under€this€chapterÏwithin€three€(3)€years€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellateÍcourt€to€which€an€appeal€is€taken€or€consideration€of€such€petition€shall€beÏbarred.ðð€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990).€€The€three„year€limitations€periodÏbegan€to€run€for€the€Petitioner€on€the€effective€date€of€the€amended€provision,ÏJuly€1,€1986.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œMullins›óó,€767€S.W.2d€668,€669€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).€€The€expiration€of€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€in€the€PetitionerððsÏcase€occurred€on€July€1,€1989.€€As€we€stated€above,€the€petition€considered€byÏthe€trial€court€in€the€present€case€was€not€filed€until€November€16,€1995.ÌÌà àOf€course,€the€new€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€governs€this€petitionÏand€all€petitions€filed€after€May€10,€1995.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„201€òòetÏseq.óó€(Supp.€1996).€€This€Act€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€that€ð ðnotwithstandingÏany€other€provision€of€this€part€to€the€contrary,€any€person€having€ground€forÏrelief€recognized€under€this€part€shall€have€at€least€one€(1)€year€from€May€10,Ï1995,€to€file€a€petition€or€a€motion€to€reopen€a€petition€under€this€part.ðð€ÏCompilerððs€Notes€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„201€(Supp.€1996)€(referring€toÏActs€1995,€ch.€207,€ðð€3).€€Relying€on€the€opinion€of€this€Court€in€òòArnold€Carter€v.ÏStateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€œ03C01›„9509„CC„00270,€Monroe€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÏKnoxville,€July€11,€1996),€òòœrevððd›óó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1997),€the€PetitionerÏargues€that€the€new€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€provides€ð ða€one„yearÏwindowðð€during€which€each€and€every€defendant€may€file€a€petition,€even€if€theÏpetition€would€have€been€long€ago€barred€by€the€three„year€statute€providedÍunder€the€previous€act.€€Because€his€petition€was€filed€within€one€year€of€MayÏ10,€1995,€the€Petitioner€contends€that€his€petition€is€not€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.ÌÌà àThis€issue€has€been€a€divisive€one,€with€other€panels€of€this€CourtÏfollowing€the€reasoning€of€the€dissent€in€òòCarteróó€and€holding€that€the€1995€Act€didÏnot€provide€previously„barred€petitioners€with€a€new€one„year€period€from€MayÏ10,€œ1995,›€during€which€they€could€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòDoyleÏCarter€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9511„CC„00398,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€12,€1997);€òòEric€C.€œPendleton›€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï01C01„9604„CR„00158,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.Ï12,€1997);€òòWallace€Butler€v.€œRicky›€Bell,€Wardenóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9510„CC„00297,€œFayette›€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.€19,€1996);€òòJohnny€L.ÏButler€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9509„CR„00289,€œShelby›€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Jackson,€Dec.€2,€1996);€òòStephen€œKoprowski›€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CC„00365,€Anderson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jan.€28,€1997);ÏòòSteve€œKoprowski›€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€03C01„9511„CR„00378,€Knox€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jan.€28,€1997).ÌÌà àOur€supreme€court€recently€resolved€the€issue€by€holding€that€petitionersÏfor€whom€the€statute€of€limitations€expired€prior€to€the€effective€date€of€the€newÍAct,€May€10,€1995,€do€not€have€an€additional€ð ðone„year€windowðð€in€which€to€fileÏfor€post„conviction€relief.€€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€___€S.W.2d€___€(Tenn.€1997).€€AfterÏconsidering€the€legislative€history€of€the€new€Act,€the€court€concluded€that€theÏenabling€provisionððs€language€at€issue€in€òòCarteróó€was€intended€to€protect€theÏpotential€class€of€petitioners€for€whom€the€one„year€limitations€period€under€theÏnew€law€had€expired€but€the€three„year€limitations€period€under€the€old€law€hadÏnot.€€òòId.óó€€Accordingly,€the€court€concluded€further€that€the€language€of€theÏenabling€provision€was€not€intended€to€and€did€not€revive€post„conviction€claimsÏthat€were€already€barred€by€the€previous€three„year€statute€of€limitations.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àApplying€this€reasoning€to€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€we€conclude€that€theÏPetitioner€did€not€have€a€ð ðone„year€windowðð€from€May€10,€1995,€in€which€to€fileÏhis€petition.€€The€previous€three„year€statute€of€limitations€began€to€run€for€theÏPetitioner€on€July€1,€œ1986,›€and€expired€on€July€1,€1989.€€As€a€result,€theÏPetitioner€was€already€barred€by€the€previous€statute€of€limitations€on€the€dateÏthe€new€Act€took€effect,€May€10,€1995.€€The€Petitioner€concedes€that€he€doesÏnot€fit€within€any€of€the€statutorily„recognized€exceptions€to€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(b)€„€(c)€(Supp.€1996).€€Thus,€theÏtrial€court€did€not€err€in€finding€that€the€petition€was€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€argues€alternatively€that€if€his€petition€is€barred€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations,€then€the€statute€of€limitations€is€unconstitutional€as€appliedÏto€him.€€Citing€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992),€the€PetitionerÏcontends€that€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€his€petition€violatesÏdue€process.€€He€asserts€that€his€grounds€for€post„conviction€relief€did€not€ariseÏuntil€he€was€prosecuted€as€an€habitual€criminal€in€California,€after€the€point€atÏwhich€the€limitations€period€began€to€run.€€Thus,€he€argues€that€because€hisÏclaim€is€based€on€grounds€for€relief€that€did€not€exist€when€the€limitations€periodÏbegan€to€run,€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€his€petition€violatesÏdue€process€guarantees.€€òòSeeóó€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208.ÌÌà àIn€òòBurfordóó,€our€supreme€court€found€the€petitioner€to€be€caught€in€aÏð ðprocedural€trapðð€because€he€was€unable€to€challenge€his€œTrousdale›€CountyÏpersistent€offender€sentence€until€the€underlying€Wilson€County€convictions€hadÏbeen€declared€void€in€the€county€where€those€convictions€occurred.€€òòId.óó€€UntilÏthat€time,€Burford€had€no€grounds€to€attack€his€œTrousdale›€County€conviction.€ÏUnder€those€circumstances,€the€court€held€that€strict€application€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€violated€due€process€in€that€it€denied€the€petitioner€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€present€his€claim.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àThe€court€further€explained€the€òòBurfordóó€rationale€in€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903ÏS.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€òòSandsóó,€the€court€articulated€a€three„step€analysisÏto€determine€whether€Burford€tolls€the€limitations€period:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(1)€œDetermine›€when€the€limitations€period€would€normally€have€begunÏto€run;Ì(2)€determine€whether€the€grounds€for€relief€actually€arose€after€theÏlimitations€period€would€normally€have€commenced;€and,Ì(3)€if€the€grounds€are€ð ðlater„arising,ðð€determine€if,€under€the€facts€of€theÏcase,€a€strict€application€of€the€limitations€period€would€effectively€denyÏthe€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€present€the€claim.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒòòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301.€€The€òòSandsóó€court€also€stated€that,€in€making€the€thirdÏdetermination,€courts€should€carefully€weigh€the€petitionerððs€liberty€interest€inÏcollaterally€attacking€constitutional€violations€occurring€during€the€conviction€processÏagainst€the€Stateððs€interest€in€preventing€the€litigation€of€stale€and€fraudulent€claims.€ÏòòId.óóÌÌà àApplying€the€first€step€in€the€òòSandsóó€analysis€to€the€present€case,€we€noteÏthat€the€limitations€period€began€to€run€for€the€Petitioner€on€July€1,€1986.€€As€weÏpointed€out€above,€the€Petitioner€was€convicted€before€the€enactment€ofÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„102€in€1986.€€Thus,€the€previous€three„year€statute€of€limitations€began€to€run€on€the€effective€date€of€the€statutoryÏprovision,€July€1,€1986.€€òòSeeóó€òòœMullins›óó,€767€S.W.2d€at€669.ÌÌà àWe€turn€now€to€the€second€step€of€the€òòSandsóó€analysis,€determining€whetherÏthe€Petitionerððs€grounds€for€relief€actually€arose€after€the€limitations€period€hadÏcommenced.€€Of€course,€grounds€for€post„conviction€relief€exist€when€a€conviction€orÏsentence€ð ðis€void€or€voidable€because€of€the€abridgement€of€any€right€guaranteedÏby€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€or€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203€(Supp.€1996).€€In€the€case€at€bar,€although€the€òòproóó€òòœse›óóÏpetition€is€unartfully€drawn€in€places,€it€is€clear€that€the€Petitioner€asserts€that€heÏwould€not€have€entered€guilty€pleas€had€he€known€that€his€convictions€could€beÏused€against€him€in€the€future.€€Accordingly,€with€regard€to€the€abridgement€of€aÏconstitutional€right,€the€Petitioner€argues€that€his€guilty€pleas€were€made€involuntarilyÏand€unknowingly€in€violation€of€due€process€guarantees.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€œMackey›óó,Ï553€S.W.2d€337,€340€(Tenn.€1977)€(stating€that€for€a€guilty€plea€and€theÏaccompanying€waiver€of€constitutional€rights€to€be€valid€under€the€due€processÏclause€of€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,€it€must€be€an€intentional€relinquishment€of€aÏknown€right€or€privilege;€in€other€words,€the€decision€to€plead€guilty€must€have€beenÏboth€voluntary€and€knowledgeable).€€In€addition,€the€petition€intimates€that€defenseÏcounsel€may€have€provided€ineffective€assistance€in€recommending€that€theÏPetitioner€plead€guilty€or€in€informing€the€Petitioner€that€the€plea€agreement€had€aÏlegal€effect€which€it€could€not€have,€namely€limiting€whether€the€convictions€could€beÏused€against€the€Petitioner€in€the€future.ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that,€unlike€the€petitioner€in€òòBurfordóó,€the€Petitionerððs€grounds€forÏrelief€did€not€arise€after€the€limitations€period€began€to€run€for€him€on€July€1,€1986.€ÏInstead,€the€Petitionerððs€asserted€grounds€for€relief,€the€involuntariness€of€his€pleaÏand€intimations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€existed€at€the€time€of€hisÏconviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€928€S.W.2d€453,€456€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);ÏòòHoward€Templeton€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00220,€Warren€CountyÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€5,€1995).€€The€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏindicates€that€the€trial€court€asked€the€Petitioner€if€any€promises€were€made€toÏinduce€his€guilty€pleas€and€he€answered€negatively,€even€though€he€knew€at€thatÏtime€that€one€of€his€principal€reasons€for€pleading€guilty€was€the€agreement€that€hisÏconvictions€could€not€be€used€against€him€in€the€future.€€Moreover,€we€note€that€theÏrecord€contains€nothing€to€support€the€Petitionerððs€bare€allegation€that€his€pleaÏagreement€included€an€assurance€that€his€convictions€could€not€be€used€againstÏhim€in€the€future.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(d)€(Supp.€1996).€€TheÏPetitioner€failed€to€include€any€documentation€of€his€plea€agreement€or€copies€of€theÏjudgments€of€conviction.€€Thus,€because€the€Petitionerððs€alleged€grounds€for€reliefÏexisted€when€the€limitations€period€began€to€run,€òòBurfordóó€does€not€apply€to€toll€theÏstatute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€contends€that€his€grounds€for€relief€are€indeed€ð ðlater„arisingððÏbecause€he€did€not€know€that€his€Tennessee€convictions€could€be€used€againstÍhim€until€they€were€actually€used€against€him€in€California.€€A€panel€of€this€Court,Ïhowever,€has€previously€held€that€a€petitionerððs€lack€of€knowledge€that€he€or€sheÏhad€legal€grounds€for€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€until€after€the€limitationsÏperiod€had€expired€cannot€defeat€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€ÏòòTempletonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00220,€slip€op.€at€3.€€In€fact,€this€Court€hasÏrepeatedly€rejected€the€notion€that€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€begins€toÏrun€when€a€petitioner€learns€that€certain€constitutional€violations€have€occurred,€theÏso„called€ð ðdiscovery€rule.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòœPassarella›€v.€Stateóó,€891€S.W.2d€619,€625€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€€As€this€Court€stated€in€Templeton,€ð ð[œt]o›€hold€otherwise€wouldÏdefeat€the€purpose€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€protecting€the€Stateððs€interest€inÏpreventing€the€litigation€of€stale€and€fraudulent€claims€and€in€ensuring€administrativeÏefficiency€and€economy.ðð€€òòTempletonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00220,€slip€op.Ïat€3.ÌÌà àÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,€we€conclude€that€the€trialÏcourt€did€not€err€in€dismissing€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€We€thereforeÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÓ  Óà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€œWOODALL›,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE