ÿWPC— 26d›{™fÔº†…ã»ôÃSfoŠˆ! ר:µ•S¶@Æ{@ÿ­ép}"€­+%ï–0Œ­\µ‘Èwî[eômºdІƒØùY†q0hÙ¬±á¡£å]FØP&£çäÂGÊ'ÈÙL¶åuô޵íN#Wâž²wÕ 1b´W‘B¬%.ÍøËe¾[£*™  D®57¼½ÜJò¿‚¸>­KBï”/°ü¾ ‚`j Æ] T·²jñ2tnDH¹J”é9{ ª 6ÏE¸ªDJ‚e¹àFj­Ø²ˆ–o<£éÙ•Ï|»MêD³ÐE1Räû~8„8ÔOµ‰ QßVV„¸iFbz—ŽïCv1†¬HÅt-ÙSQÜJ‰_]š–IÏŸ¢0±´ßñmUîþ¤=á›ÞCQõëx4§ž\^Läô:¹0þõÆêWà Ûè…”$ ò¿é$ÎÆC¸/f‡Ë‡#EÚ¿yI´.â#KX#¨i¿Õð_½‹áI LÆ VZ‚`JjÿÂO5kðqæJ_~©¡ˆDd*;œäzTR[óߺ×÷ “/¬ÙbÏ>Rí–K.øÝO;‰jå¢Á°šw§ˆ^ ¬lÜ™5…š~Ñò(µ»>eæò ʳLÒíµâ€ya#!NUNo %½ 0:ÃNý^ ÿw 4 # 2 m4 U,K -w U,¤ Ð hØ U:@ Æz z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z AQ@ Æ‘ 0VW 0V­ 0D D3G Bz˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ô j'L ”@q'¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ,c½¬AZ‹Arial  #Ñ#€CXÿÿd#Ñ, øð AZArial   ^Ý ƒ[½Þ"ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ€Xã›XXXÔÔ€èçXXã›ÔÓ  ÓÔ_Ôò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDԀȮçèÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€10,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€Ô_ÔClerkÔdAŠÔó óÔ_Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Z[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(.3½Þ$¢¢Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý(.3½Þ$££Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó````'ÿÿdxd dÝ ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒòòÓ  ÓÔ€Xã›XXXÔÑ€ zãÑÔ_Ôßv€Y_@0,j: `€€@ÿEðâ Žtt¨¦(Ü \vßÔ_ÔÔ_ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ Ü  ÐÌÓÌÓà@*ÚàAT€KNOXVILLEˆà ô àà L àà ¤ àÐ ¨ Ì Ðóóà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àà ô àà L àà ¤ àÌà@™™%ÚàSEPTEMBER€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌMARK€SHANE€GRIFFIS,€€à ” àà ì à*à D àC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9811„CR„00397Ð  0 ÐÌà Œ àà ä àAppellant,à ” àà ì à*à D àROANE€COUNTYÐ Øü  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌVS.à Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à*à D àHon.€E.€Eugene€Eblen,€JudgeÐ ¤È  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ” àà ì à*à D à(Post„Conviction)€Ð p”  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àÌà Œ àà ä àAppellee.à ” àà ì à*à D àÐ <` ÐÌÌòòÌFor€Appellant:à < àà ” àà ì àà D àFor€Appellee:óó€Ð Ôø ÐÌJoe€Walker€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ” àà ì àà D àPaul€G.€SummersÐ  Ä ÐPublic€Defender€€€€€€à ” àà ì àà D àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ †ª ÐNinth€Judicial€Districtà ” àà ì àà D àÐ l  ÐP.O.€Box€334€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ” àà ì àà D àTodd€R.€KelleyÐ R!v ÐHarriman,€TN€€37748„0334à ì àà D àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÐ 8"\ Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ” àà ì àà D à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÐ #B ÐAlfred€Lee€Hathcock,€Jr.€€à ” àà ì àà D à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÐ $( ÐAssistant€Public€Defender€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Nashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌNinth€Judicial€DistrictÌP.O.€Box€334€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à ” àà ì àà D àCharles€HawkÐ ¶&Ú ÐHarriman,€TN€€37748„0334à ì àà D àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ œ'À  Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNinth€Judicial€DistrictÌWalter€Johnsonà < àà ” àà ì àà D àP.O.€Box€703Ð h)Œ" ÐAssistant€Public€Defender€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Kingston,€TN€€37763„0703ÌNinth€Judicial€DistrictÌP.O.€Box€334à < àà ” àà ì àà D àD.€Roger€DelpÐ ,>!% ÐHarriman,€TN€€37748„0334à ì àà D àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÐ -$"& Ðà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àNinth€Judicial€DistrictÌà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àP.O.€Box€703Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Kingston,€TN€€37763„0703ÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________ÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÓÓà@33-Úàò òÔ€ Xã›XXXã›ÔòòOPINIONóóˆÐ z:ž/5 ÐÑ zãÑâ  âÑ#€CXÿÿd#Ñâ  âÑ  Ñó óà Œ àà ä àThe€petitioner,€Mark€Shane€Griffis,€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÐ Ö:v17 ÐÑ zãÑâ  âÑ8€”qXXdìXXdì8Ñâ  âÑ  Ñpost„conviction€relief.€€The€single€issue€presented€for€review€is€whether€the€petitionÐ `  Ðwas€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àOn€March€15,€1995,€the€petitioner€entered€a€plea€of€guilt€to€the€sale€ofÏ.5€gram€of€cocaine.€€On€August€1,€1995,€the€petitioner€received€a€sentence€of€eightÏyears€in€a€community€corrections€program.€€He€did€not€appeal.€€Later,€the€trial€courtÏrevoked€the€community€corrections€sentence€and€ordered€the€petitioner€to€serve€theÏterm€in€the€Department€of€Corrections.€€The€order€was€upheld€on€direct€appeal.€ÏòòState€v.€Mark€Griffisóó,€No.€03C01„9708„CR„00358€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,Ð Xø ÐOct.€13,€1998.).€€Two€years€and€four€months€after€the€imposition€of€sentence,€theÏpetitioner€filed€this€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€that€the€prosecutionÏwithheld€exculpatory€evidence,€that€his€guilty€plea€was€neither€knowingly€norÏvoluntarily€entered,€and€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective.€€The€trial€court€dismissedÏthe€petition€on€the€basis€that€it€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€TheÏpetitioner€asserts€that€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€would€abridge€hisÏright€to€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995);€òòBurford€v.Ð ì'Œ" ÐStateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204,€208€(Tenn.€1992).Ð ¸)X $ ÐÌà Œ àà ä àUnder€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995,€a€petition€must€beÏfiled€ð ðwithin€one€(1)€year€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellateÏcourt€to€which€an€appeal€is€taken€or,€if€no€appeal€is€taken,€within€one€(1)€year€of€theÏdate€on€which€the€judgment€became€final,€or€consideration€of€such€petition€shall€beÏbarred.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a).€€The€statute€provides€that€the€limitationsÏperiod€ð ðshall€not€be€tolled€for€any€reason,€including€any€tolling€or€saving€provisionÏotherwise€available€at€law€or€equity.ðð€€òòId.óó€€Thus,€this€petition,€filed€well€pastÐ 8¸.4 Ðlimitations€of€the€statute,€is€barred.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àThere€are€exceptions.€€If€the€claim€is€based€upon€a€new€rule€ofÏconstitutional€law,€upon€new€scientific€evidence€showing€innocence,€or€upon€aÏsentence€that€was€enhanced€because€of€convictions€that€have€subsequently€beenÏfound€to€be€illegal,€then€the€petitioner€has€recourse.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„¼202(b).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àNeither€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€entry€of€an€invalid€guiltyÏplea,€nor€withholding€exculpatory€evidence€qualify€as€new€constitutional€grounds€forÏrelief.€€òòSeeóó€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984);€òòBoykin€v.€Alabamaóó,€395Ð Xø ÐU.S.€238€(1969).€€Thus,€the€allegations€in€the€petition€do€not€satisfy€any€exception€toÏthe€statute€of€limitations.€€Moreover,€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€inÏthis€instance€does€not€run€afoul€of€due€process€principles.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204,€208€(Tenn.€1992),€our€supremeÐ T$ô Ðcourt€held€that€in€certain€situations€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€aÏpost„conviction€proceeding€might€violate€constitutional€due€process.€€In€determiningÏwhether€there€has€been€such€a€violation,€the€essential€question€is€whether€the€timeÏperiod€allowed€by€law€provides€the€petitioner€with€a€fair€and€reasonable€opportunityÏto€file€suit.€€òòId.óó€€In€òòBurfordóó,€the€petitioner€could€not€have€filed€within€the€three„yearÐ P-ð#( Ðlimitation€absent€a€determination€on€his€prior€post„conviction€petition.€€Our€supremeÏcourt€ruled€that€Burford€was€ð ðcaught€in€a€procedural€trap€and€unable€to€initiateÏlitigation€...€despite€the€approach€of€the€three„year€limitation.ðð€€òòId.óó€€There€was€noÐ ´2T). Ðsuch€trap€here.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àIn€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€courtÐ 8¸.4 Ðfurther€defined€how€to€apply€the€òòBurfordóó€test.€€The€requirements€are€to:Ð `  ÐÓÓà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à1)€determine€when€the€limitations€period€would€normallyÏhave€begun€to€run;Ð ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à2)€determine€whether€the€grounds€for€relief€actually€aroseÏafter€the€limitations€period€would€normally€haveÏcommenced;€andÐ ä Ð ä Ð  Ðà8 Œ àà8ä Œ (#Œ (#à3)€if€the€grounds€are€ð ðlater„arising,ðð€determine€if,€underÏthe€facts€of€the€case,€a€strict€application€of€the€limitationsÏperiod€would€effectively€deny€the€petitioner€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€present€the€claim.€€In€making€this€finalÏdetermination,€courts€should€carefully€weigh€theÏpetitionerððs€liberty€interest€in€ð ðcollaterally€attackingÏconstitutional€violations€occurring€during€the€convictionÏprocess,ðð€against€the€stateððs€interest€in€preventing€theÏlitigation€of€ð ðstale€and€fraudulent€claims.ððÐ ä Ð ä Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301€(citations€omitted)€(quoting€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€207,Ð ¦F Ð208).ÌÌà Œ àà ä àBy€the€use€of€these€guidelines,€we€have€determined€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€for€this€petitionerððs€convictions€expired€in€1996.€€Because€these€claimsÏhave€always€been€available€to€the€petitioner,€none€of€the€grounds€fit€within€theÏexception€to€the€rule.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€by€dismissing€the€post„convictionÏpetition.ÌÌà Œ àà ä àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà€¸¸€%àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ˆÐ j, #' Ðóóà€ÖÖ'€%àGary€R.€Wade,€Presiding€Judge€€€€€€€€€€€€ˆÐ P-ð#( ÐÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ Î1n(- ÐJerry€L.€Smith,€JudgeÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ f5,1 ÐJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.,€Judgeà ì àà D à