WPC"A .X\k ֑7 pC>$JmרKDe_Ul^(}gV AF-Wto?}d1ǁ%ZIC\ Y9-l3;'H|~Lw6NJR 4*/`0Ӑ#,} M**<_:8hvYGa]&2\BBSLYZsᚭ2LU]{o.ie;]r(+I#ȉ-W<^ɃXp rcB@u W$by4߭`g \춓S1{g:W=";@fVW1bN3UFЇ*DXSN8c?!b)YF_YɏBxg `GO?z#7+ =Ǒ9SCF!F%[ɤڝr(92dt8@ au3C/b %\Nb 0dU&N: zB z  ^ w 4     _ %N' m)#@E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0p 0O 0+ 0  0 0 0 0w 0J 0 0 0 0 0p! 0K" 0##b# 0$ 0$ 0% 0m& 006' 0<f' 0' 0>`( 0v( 0`) 0`t) 0`) 0`4* 0`* 08* 0,+ 02+ 00, 0:,- 0Yf- 0_- 0 . 0j(/ 00 B*2 D/@2 0o2 D/3 0"4 064 0&5 0:.6 0^h6 0<6U67 087U>#8U*a88 B; 0D; 0; D5< D-< 0K<3C= ASv>> 0? 0D3@ Aw@(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times 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.wptB-s Yo)3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5UHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 602J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1   XXX   (&H2 XXX (&H3 XXX (&H4 XXX XXX(&H5 XXX (&H6 XXX 20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7H(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?  XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dG)1dxd<:zTop of For7J(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?  XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7G)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New(|G2$ !.8}dd8         0  %\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  R$      2  %  _ ` Initsorderdismissingthepetition,thepostconvictioncourtstatedthatthe [_j]udgments_Ԁofconvictions  wereenteredonDecember16,1987[,]incases6218through6313for95countsoffalsepretense.Thepetitionwasfiled t onJune27,1991....Thepetitionisbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.However,thepetitionerwasonlyconvicted 8 ofnineoftheninetyfivecountsoffalsepretense,witheightysixofthecountsbeingdismissed,andthepetitionerfiled L hispetitionin2001,not1991. d(#$  0  (|3?q$ !.8}dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1   ) R$      1  %  _ ` Thepetitionerassertsthathedidnotfileadirectappealofhissentenceandthatthisishisfirstpetition  forpostconvictionrelief.^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?q$ !.8}dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8}dd8     _   }8B!XXdd8@tt,}INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#}, #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsJuly9,2002 L XB!X} #}XXB!#WILLIAMSTEVE_GREENUP_v.STATEOFTENNESSEEXB!X}  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_Obion_ԀCounty  J @@No.1208WilliamB._Acree_,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200101764CCAR3PC_Ԅ_ԀFiledOctober2,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thepetitioner,WilliamSteve_Greenup_,appealstheorderofthe_Obion_ԀCountyCircuitCourt x  dismissinghispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Thepostconvictioncourtsummarilydismissed d thepetition,findingthepetitiontobebarredbythestatuteoflimitations.Onappeal,thepetitioner P contendsthatthepostconvictioncourterredindismissinghispetitionastimebarredduetothe < recentUnitedStatesSupremeCourtrulingsin_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,120S.Ct. (x 2348(2000),andGloverv.UnitedStates,531U.S.198,121S.Ct.696(2001),whichhealleges d creatednewrulesofconstitutionallawrequiringretroactiveapplicationtohiscase.Afterreviewing P therecordandthepartiesbriefs,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourt.#}XXB!#XB!X} < @ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.     #}XB!u #XB!X.}NormaMcGeeOgle,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJohnEverettWilliamsand  AlanE.Glenn,JJ.,joined.  WilliamSteve_Greenup_,Ashland,Kentucky,Prose. ` PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;P.RobinDixon,Jr.,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; 8!  ThomasA.Thomas,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. $"t! * @@OO& OPINION #}XXB!Y #XB!X} #L#  I.FactualBackground  %$!%        ` OnDecember16,1987,thepetitionerpledguiltytoninecountsofobtainingovertwo &"& hundreddollars($200)byfalsepretensesandreceivedatotalsentenceoftwelveyearsincarceration '"' intheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.Thepetitioneriscurrentlyconfinedatafederal (#( penitentiaryinKentucky.OnoraboutJune26,2001,nearlyfourteenyearsafterhisguiltypleas,the )$)  petitionermailedtotheCircuitCourtClerkof_Obion_ԀCountyaprosepetitionforpostconviction p*%* _relief,whichtheclerksofficemarkedasfiledonJune27,2001.\ W#  1      ׀Inhispetition,thepetitioner   assertedthathisconvictionsmustbesetasideandvacatedduetotherecentSupremeCourtdecisions  inApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,120S.Ct.2348(2000),andGloverv.UnitedStates,531  U.S.198,121S.Ct.696(2001).Specifically,thepetitionerallegedthat,becausethemonetary t amountwasanessentialelementoftheoffensesforwhichhewasconvicted,theamountshouldhave ` beenincludedintheindictment,presentedtothetrieroffact,andprovenbeyondareasonabledoubt. L  Additionally,thepetitionerclaimedthathiscounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoobjecttothetrial 8  courtsimpositionofconsecutivesentencing.Thepostconvictioncourtsummarilydismissedthe $ t petition,holdingthatthepetitionwasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.U W#  2      ׀Thepetitionerappeals  ` thedismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.  L  #}XXB! #XB!X}7    II.Analysis  $       ` ThepetitionersconvictionsbecamefinalonDecember16,1987.Thereisnodispute   thatthepetitionersJune2001petitionwasfiledoutsidethethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsperiod   applicabletothepetitioners1987convictions.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(1986)(repealed   1995).However,thepetitionerassertsthatheisentitledtopostconvictionreliefunderTennessee   CodeAnnotatedsection4030202(b)(1)(1997),whichcreatesanexceptionallowingapetitionfor p postconvictionrelieftobefiledbeyondthestatuteoflimitationsiftheclaimforreliefisbasedupon \ anewlyestablishedconstitutionalruleoflaw,notexistingatthetimeoftrial,thatrequires H retroactiveapplication.Anysuchpetitionmustbefiledwithinoneyearofthecourtruling 4 establishingthenewright.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b)(1).  p    `    ` Inresponsetothepetitionersappeal,theStatefiledamotionaskingthiscourtto H affirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtpursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminal 4 Appeals.InsupportofitsRule20motion,theStateassertedthatthepostconvictioncourtproperly   dismissedthepetitionastimebarred.TheStatecontendedthat,evenifApprendididestablishanew   constitutionalruleoflaw,thepetitionerfailedtofilehispetitionwithinoneyearoftheApprendi  decisionasrequiredbyTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030202(b)(1).#}XXB!R#XB!X}TheStatebasedits  contentiononthefactthatthecircuitcourtclerksofficemarkedthepetitionfiledonJune27,2001,  morethanoneyearaftertheApprendidecisionwashandeddownonJune26,2000.However,in l ourorderdenyingtheStatesRule20motion,thiscourtnotedthat,pursuanttoRule49(c), X  TennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure,andRule28,2(G),RulesoftheTennesseeSupreme D! Court,thepetitionofaproselitigantincarceratedinacorrectionalfacilityisdeemedfileduponthe 0"  prisonersdeliveryofthepetitiontotheappropriateprisonauthority,notuponthereceiptofthe #l! petitionbythecourtclerk.BecausethepetitionersignedthepetitiononJune22,2001,#}XXB!#XB!X}Ԁandthe $X" circuitcourtclerksofficefiledthepetitiononJune27,2001,thiscourtlogicallyconcludedthatthe  petitionerdeliveredthepetitiontotheprisonauthoritiesformailingonorbeforeJune26,2001,  withintheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.#}XXB! #XB!X}ԀTherefore,thepetitionwillbeconsideredtimelyif  ApprendiandGloverestablishednewconstitutionalrulesoflawthatrequireretroactiveapplication t tothepetitionerscase.#}XXB!"#XB!X} ` A.0  Apprendi8 (#(#    ` #}XXB!S##XB!X}A caseannouncesanewrulewhenitbreaksnewgroundorimposesanew $ t obligationontheStatesortheFederalGovernment[or]...iftheresultwasnotdictatedby  ` precedentexistingatthetimethedefendantsconvictionbecamefinal.Teaguev.Lane,489U.S.  L  288,301,109S.Ct.1060,1070(1989)(citationsomitted);seealsoVanTranv.State,66S.W.3d  8  790,81011(Tenn.2001).CourtsaddressingwhetherApprendisetsforthanewrulehaveheldthat, $  inApprendi, theSupremeCourtannouncedanewconstitutionalruleofcriminalprocedureby   holdingthatotherthanthefactofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyforacrime   beyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmittedtothejury,andprovedbeyonda   reasonabledoubt.InreClemmons,259F.3d489,491(6thCir.2001)(quotingApprendi,530U.S.   at491,120S.Ct.at236263);seealsoUnitedStatesv.Sanders,247F.3d139,147(4thCir.2001) p (holdingthat Apprendiiscertainlyanewruleofcriminalprocedure);UnitedStatesv.Moss,252 \ F.3d993,997(8thCir.2001)(holdingthat Apprendiisobviouslyanewrule).Because H Apprendisetsforthanewconstitutionalruleofcriminalprocedure,thefundamentalquestion 4 becomeswhetherApprendiappliesretroactivelytothepetitionerscase.  p    ` Newrulesofconstitutionalcriminalprocedurearegenerallynotappliedretroactively H oncollateralreview.Teague,489U.S.at310.However,thisgeneralruleissubjecttotwo 4 exceptions.Id. First,anewruleshouldbeappliedretroactivelyifitplacescertainkindsof   primary,privateindividualconductbeyondthepowerofthecriminallawmakingauthorityto   proscribe.Id.at307.Second,anewruleshouldbeappliedretroactivelyifitisa watershedrule  ofcriminalprocedure,...whichimplicatesboththeaccuracyandfundamentalfairnessofcriminal  proceedings.Moss,252F.3dat998(citingTeague,489U.S.at312).Clearly,thefirstexception  isnotapplicabletothepetitionersclaim,becausetherulesetforthinApprendi didnot l decriminalizeanyclassofconductorprohibitacertaincategoryofpunishmentforaclassof X  defendants.McCoyv.UnitedStates,266F.3d1245,1256(11thCir.2001).Furthermore,thegreat D! weightofauthorityholdsthatApprendiisnotthetypeofwatershedruleofcriminalprocedurethat 0"  qualifiesforretroactiveapplicationunderthesecondexception.Dukesv.UnitedStates,255F.3d #l! 912,913(8thCir.2001)(holdingthat Apprendipresentsanewruleofconstitutionallawthatisnot $X" ofwatershedmagnitudeand,consequently,petitionersmaynotraiseApprendiclaimsoncollateral $D # review);Sanders,247F.3dat151(holdingthat thenewruleannouncedinApprendidoesnotrise %0!$ tothelevelofawatershedruleofcriminalprocedurewhichaltersourunderstandingofthebedrock &"% elementsessentialtothefairnessofaproceeding);McCoy,266F.3dat1257(agreeingwiththe '#& othercircuitsthat ApprendiisnotsufficientlyfundamentaltofallwithinTeaguessecond (#' exception).Accordingly,weconcludethatthenewconstitutionalruleofcriminalprocedure )$( announcedinApprendidoesnotapplyretroactivelyoncollateralreview. |*%) Ѐ h+&* B.0  Glover(#(#    ` Thepetitioneralsoarguesthatthepostconvictioncourterredindismissinghis  petitionastimebarredbecausehispetitionwasbased,inpart,onthenewconstitutionalrulesetforth  inGloverv.UnitedStates,531U.S.198,121S.Ct.696(2001).Accordingtothepetitioner,a t defendantattemptingtoshowprejudiceinanineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimpreviouslyhad ` toshow significantprejudice,but,inGlover,theSupremeCourt madeclearthatsignificant L  prejudice[was]nolongerrequired.Gloverinvolvedanineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaimin 8  whichdefensecounselsfailuretochallengethedistrictcourtsgroupingofoffensesledtoasixto $ t twentyonemonthincreaseinthedefendantssentence.Glover,531U.S.at200201.Thelower  ` courtsfoundthatanincreaseofsixtotwentyonemonthsinadefendantssentencewas not  L  significantenoughtoconstituteprejudiceunderStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,104S.  8  Ct.2052(1984).Glover,531U.S.at202.TheSupremeCourtreversed,holdingthatanyincrease $  insentenceduetocounselserrorwassignificantundertheprejudiceprongofStrickland.Id.at203.   TheholdinginGlover,however,doesnotstateanewconstitutionalruleoflaw.Aspreviously   stated, acaseannouncesanewrulewhenitbreaksnewgroundorimposesanewobligationonthe   StatesortheFederalGovernment[or]...iftheresultwasnotdictatedbyprecedentexistingatthe   timethedefendantsconvictionbecamefinal.Teague,489U.S.at301.#}XXB!##XB!X}ԀTheholdinginGlover p doesneither.Instead,itclarifiestheexistingtestforineffectiveassistanceofcounselunder \ Strickland. H    `    ` BecauseApprendidoesnotapplyretroactivelytocasesoncollateralreviewand  p Gloverfailstoestablishanewconstitutionalruleoflaw,thepetitionerspostconvictionpetition  \ doesnotfallundertheexceptioncreatedinTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030202(b)(1). H Therefore,thepetitionisbarredbythestatuteoflimitations. 4    III.Conclusion         ` Fortheforegoingreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourt.  #}XXB! =#XB!X}   `     h     ___________________________________ D!    `     h     NORMAMcGEEOGLE,JUDGE