ÿWPC  vsB‘íx.l­–³$´ý—Â×gä~<µM}ŽÈûPÂCñ7ªÑ/6pAàÚïÄ]•Z˜M¸\.BDöU‘Ìv?ñgàwæi›»Õ”—MàS„Çèþncü!áöpÎÔfȤSHCx>—`E^À“z»¸8Š”`wt7DÅšÖ7‘û#Ò.ñÄN–ÏÑR×sû§‰H2ÇÜ,ò·Â;ô™·†êyú¯š:eKR ¤€EËæÞ÷º”âo›“sXo}—žílHî»&Ó­訽üºMõÂcöáÕ€ü°^„È—hóÏ—xÌÎ8VÄv2zbB{#GÖ£ª\´ž£L8aqé«ÿG*/ý­®"Jj3ye¿‹à¶&`KÊK9ÂN©ž]Cx *0‘s¯×i,زš-Û¢˜âtÌÿa¿(ó¼Ñ›Ss±Ò›òGÿ ¸núÁ û*'·C{(ÓǤZnè(WWúí¨ÿÏ Mj¬öDbö0N$Þ«à©r¦êÚË ¸t°×Q躗qvFúé$Y0Œ¹†õ)»:œ g”ùÐ0ÿaŒEúK>ñ;)zkŠ.LêdÎþJñÛý"¶®¦€[™œPb#Á\ % ‹# 0ˆ® UN6 0D„ ”È z\ÒÖ¨^ °w¼4ÀÆÔÆšÆ`Æ&ìNûý mÿEæbþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ 0ë Bññ 0¤ D5² D-ç 0K AS_Ʋ 0¤x 0D A«`˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0» Ý ƒR‹þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€note€that€the€TOMIS€letter€references€a€few€convictions€that€emanated€from€judgment€dates€òòother€thanóó€JuneÐ ° Ð21,€1994.€We€also€note€that€only€the€odd„numbered€pages€from€the€TOMIS€letter€were€exhibited€to€the€petitionerððsÐ tÄ Ðsupplemental€petition€and€were€included€in€the€appellate€record.€The€TOMIS€letter€reflects€22€convictions€on€June€21,Ð 8ˆ Ð1994€for€burglary€or€theft,€and€the€plea€petition€reflects€32€such€convictions,€not€counting€misdemeanors.(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ŠÝ ƒR‹þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€1978€the€Department€of€Correction€implemented€the€Offender€Based€Computer€Information€SystemÐ ° Ð(Ô_ÔOBCISÔ_Ô).€€In€1992€the€department€converted€from€Ô_ÔOBCISÔ_Ô€to€the€current€system,€the€Tennessee€Offender€ManagementÐ tÄ ÐInformation€System.€€òòSeeóóòòJerome€Ô_ÔStreeterÔ_Ô€v.€Tennessee€Department€of€Correctionóó,€No.€M1999„02267„COA„R3„CVÐ 8ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Nashville,€Aug.€31,€2000). ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt pm-s 3j1,Üê:i¢×+00Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ÜÝ ƒR‹þ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€1990€effective€sentence€resulted€from€at€least€eleven€convictions€for€burglary€or€larceny.- ù-(|G2‹þ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæò»»Ô d(|3‡Š$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡Š$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€S­»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼S­»»»ÔÑ8€aXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îY,S­ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼S­»îîY, #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€20,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡XaX»¼S­ÔÌò òÔ#†¼S­»XXa #ÔSHAUN€LAMONT€HEREFORDòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XaX»¼S­Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€239059€€€€€€Douglas€A.€Meyer,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2002„01222„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐNovember€13,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Shaun€Lamont€Hereford,€appeals€the€Hamilton€County€Criminal€Courtððs€dismissalÐ xÈ  Ðof€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€in€which€he€alleged€void€convictions,€misrepresentation€byÐ d´ Ðhis€trial€attorney,€and€that€he€was€entitled€to€DNA€analysis€of€physical€evidence.€€Discerning€no€errorÐ P  Ðin€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing,€we€affirm.Ô#†¼S­»XXa#ÔÔ‡XaX»¼S­ÔÐ <Œ ÐÓÊÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ d ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼S­»àXaÁ#ÔÔ‡XaX.¼S­ÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óóÐ ì< Ðand€òòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð Ø( ÐÌShaun€Hereford,€Appellant,€Pro€Se.Ð ° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Kathy€D.€Ô_ÔAslingerÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ˆØ ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Rodney€Strong,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ tÄ ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð `° ÐÓdÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼S­»XXa“#ÔòòóóÔ‡XaX»¼S­ÔÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÓ  ÓÔ#†¼S­»XXaÅ #ÔÔ€XaX»¼S­Ôà  àÌà  àà ` àThe€record€on€appeal€contains€little€more€than€the€post„conviction€petition€asÐ #`" Ðsupplemented,€the€courtððs€order€dismissing€the€petition,€and€the€petitionerððs€notice€of€appeal.€€FromÐ ü#L# Ðthe€petition,€we€glean€that€the€petitioner€is€challenging€his€1994€convictions€in€numerous€indictmentsÐ è$8 $ Ðfor€aggravated€burglary€and€theft.€€He€was€convicted€by€a€jury€on€some€counts€and€pleaded€guiltyÐ Ô%$!% Ðto€the€remaining€counts.€€Apparently€the€judgments€on€the€guilty„pleaded€counts,€if€not€theÐ À&"& Ðjudgments€in€all€counts,€were€entered€on€June€21,€1994.€€No€appeal€was€taken.€€Ð ¬'ü"' ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€January€7,€2002,€the€petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€thisÐ „)Ô$) Ðpetition€as€amended€or€supplemented,€he€alleged€that€his€trial€counsel€represented€to€him€that€heÐ p*À%* Ðâ âwould€receive€an€effective€Department€of€Correction€sentence€of€42€years€for€all€of€his€June€21,€1994Ð \+¬&+ýà ÐÔ_Ôconvictions.€€The€petitioner€claimed€that€a€Department€of€Correction€ð ðTOMISðð׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€letter€dated€OctoberÐ ° Ðâ â6,€2001€advised€him€for€the€first€time€that€his€effective€sentence€was€52€years.€€He€also€claimed€thatÐ œì Ðhis€counsel€had€told€him€that,€as€a€career€offender,€he€òòwould€be€releasedóó€upon€serving€60€percent€ofÐ ˆØ Ðhis€sentence€but€that€the€TOMIS€letter€informed€him€that€he€would€òòonly€be€eligibleóó€for€release€afterÐ tÄ Ðserving€60€percent€of€his€sentence.€€Further,€the€petitioner€claimed€in€his€petition€that€the€TOMISÐ `° Ðletter€revealed€that€the€petitioner€was€serving€sentences€in€cases€in€which€he€received€no€convictions.€Ð L œ ÐFinally,€the€petitioner€moved€the€court€for€an€order€directing€discovery€of€the€stateððs€trial€exhibitsÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€physical€evidence€so€as€to€allow€him€to€discern€the€proper€exhibits€to€be€the€subject€of€DNAÐ $ t Ðanalysis,€which€he€alleged€would€exonerate€him€from€the€crimes€of€which€he€stands€convicted.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€petitioner€alleged€in€his€petition€that€his€2002€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÐ è 8  Ðwas€not€barred€by€the€one„year€statute€of€limitations€because€principles€of€due€process€compel€thatÐ Ô$  Ðhe€be€allowed€to€avoid€the€statute€of€limitations€so€as€to€present€his€claims€of€attorneyÐ À  Ðmisrepresentation.€€The€petition€recites€that€the€DNA€analysis€claim€is€unfettered€by€any€applicableÐ ¬ü  Ðstatute€of€limitations.€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€held€that€the€Post„Conviction€DNA€Analysis€Act€of€2001,Ð pÀ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„30„401€to€„413€(Supp.€2001),€provides€that€a€petitioner€who€challengesÐ \¬ Ðburglary€or€theft€convictions€pursuant€to€the€Act€may€obtain€no€relief€unless€the€same€is€ð ðdirectedððÐ H˜ Ðby€the€trial€court.€€The€lower€court€declined€to€direct€any€discovery€or€DNA€analysis€on€the€groundsÐ 4„ Ðthat€many€of€the€petitionerððs€convictions€were€the€result€of€guilty€pleas€which€were€presented€to€theÐ  p Ðcourt€upon€agreed€factual€bases€and€in€which€the€defendant€admitted€guilt.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€then€opined€that,€to€the€extent€that€the€petitioner€sought€toÐ ä4 Ðattack€the€Department€of€Correctionððs€calculation€of€his€sentences,€the€claim€was€not€cognizable€inÐ Ð  Ða€post„conviction€proceeding.€€Finally,€the€lower€court€held€that€the€claims€of€misrepresentation€ofÐ ¼  Ðcounsel€were€barred€by€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€and€that€ð ðdue€process€does€notÐ ¨ø Ðrequire€tolling€of€the€limitations€period€or€even€an€evidentiary€hearing€[because]€any€claim€ofÐ ”ä Ðmisrepresentation€on€the€part€of€counsel€regarding€the€petitionerððs€release€eligibility€[did€not€arise]Ð €Ð Ðafter€commencement€of€the€limitations€period.ðð€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` à€The€courtððs€order€recited€in€a€footnote€that€the€TOMIS€letter€does€not€include€anyÐ D!” Ðcharges€from€the€June€21,€1994€proceedings€that€were€not€described€in€the€guilty€plea€petition.€€TheÐ 0"€  Ðpost„conviction€court€concluded€that€trial€counsel€did€not€misrepresent€the€release€eligibility€date€orÐ #l! Ðthe€length€of€the€effective€sentence€because€the€actual€length€of€the€€June€21,€1994€effective€sentenceÐ $X" Ðwas€in€fact€42€years.Ð ô$D # Ðâ âÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àà ` àIndeed,€we€note€from€the€TOMIS€letter€and€the€guilty€plea€petition€affixed€to€the€post„Ð ° Ðâ âconviction€petition€that€the€additional€ten€years€was€apparently€derived€from€1988€and€1990Ð œì Ðconvictions€for€larceny€and€burglary.€€For€these€convictions,€the€defendant€received€an€effectiveÐ ˆØ Ðincarcerative€sentence€of€ten€years,€and€the€1994€sentences€were€apparently€imposed€to€runÐ tÄ Ðconsecutively€to€these€earlier€sentences,€as€provided€in€the€guilty€plea€submission€petition.€Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àPost„conviction€relief€is€only€available€when€ð ðthe€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðvoidable€because€of€the€abridgmentðð€of€a€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203€(1997).Ð $ t ÐThe€post„conviction€petitioner€bears€the€burden€of€proving€his€or€her€allegations€by€clear€andÐ  ` Ðconvincing€evidence,€òòid.óó€ðð€40„30„210(f)€(1997);€however,€if€prior€to€the€evidentiary€hearing€the€trialÐ ü L  Ðcourt€reviews€the€post„conviction€record€and€determines€ð ðthat€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€no€relief,Ð è 8  Ðthe€court€shall€dismiss€the€petition,ðð€òòid.óó€ðð€40„30„209(a)€(1997);€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28€ðð€6(B)(4)(a)Ð Ô$  Ð(court€may€dismiss€post„conviction€petition€that€states€no€colorable€claim).€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àUnless€the€post„conviction€petition€is€filed€within€one€year€ð ðof€the€date€of€the€finalÐ ˜è  Ðaction€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€is€taken€or,€if€no€appeal€is€taken,€withinÐ „Ô  Ðone€(1)€year€of€the€date€on€which€the€judgment€became€final,ðð€the€post„conviction€claims€are€barred.€Ð pÀ ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(a)€(1997);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€44€S.W.3d€464,€468€(Tenn.Ð \¬ Ð2001)€(post„conviction€claimant€whose€conviction€was€finalized€between€May€10,€1992€and€May€10,Ð H˜ Ð1995€has€until€May€10,€1996€to€file€a€post„conviction€petition).€Ð 4„ ЀÌà  àà ` àFirst,€we€address€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€he€is€illegally€and€unconstitutionallyÐ  \ Ðserving€sentences€in€the€Department€of€Correction€that€are€not€based€upon€any€imposed€convictions.€Ð øH ÐHe€claims€that€some€of€the€convictions€listed€in€the€TOMIS€report€are€not€included€in€his€June€21,Ð ä4 Ð1994€plea€petition.€€He€argues€that€his€claim€is€not€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€becauseÐ Ð  Ðprinciples€of€due€process€entitle€him€to€present€a€post„conviction€claim€which€he€has€been€deniedÐ ¼  Ða€ð ðreasonable€opportunity€to€assert€.€.€.€in€a€meaningful€time€and€manner.ðð€€òòSee€Williamsóó,€44€S.W.3dÐ ¨ø Ðat€468.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€disagree€and€hold€that€the€claim€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€TheÐ l¼ Ðpetition€makes€no€case€that€the€petitioner€was€denied€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€assert€his€post„Ð X ¨ Ðconviction€claim€of€illegal€sentences;€it€merely€asserts€that€the€petitioner€ð ðdiscovered€on€or€aboutÐ D!” Ð10/10/92€that€he€had€been€convicted€and€sentenced€for€offenses€he€had€not€pleaded€guilty€to.ðð€€ThisÐ 0"€  Ðallegation€is€insufficient€to€invoke€due€process€considerations€to€toll€the€running€of€the€post„Ð #l! Ðconviction€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Stateóó,€928€S.W.2d€453,€457€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)Ð $X" Ð(ð ð[T]he€petitionerððs€claimed€lack€of€knowledge€does€not€toll€the€statute€[of€limitations]€for€post„Ð ô$D # Ðconviction€purposes.ðð)òòóó€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€post„conviction€relief€on€this€issue€is€barred€by€the€post„conviction€statute€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðlimitations.€€That€said,€we€are€aware€that€the€petitioner€claims€entitlement€to€attack€an€illegalÐ ¤(ô#' Ðsentence€ð ðat€any€time.ðð€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Mahleróó,€735€S.W.2d€226,€228€(Tenn.€1987);€òòState€v.Ð )à$( ÐBurkhart,óó€566€S.W.2d€871€(Tenn.€1978).€€This€court€has€previously€explained€that€the€phrase€ð ðillegalÐ |*Ì%) Ðsentenceðð€is€synonymous€with€the€òòhabeasóó€òòcorpusóó€concept€of€a€void€sentence€and€is,€therefore,Ð h+¸&* Ðcognizable€in€a€òòhabeas€corpusóó€proceeding.€€òòCox€v.€Stateóó,€53€S.W.3d€289,€292€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð ° Ð2001).€€However,€the€petitioner€in€the€present€case€has€failed€to€comply€with€the€proceduralÐ œì Ðrequirements€for€filing€and€prosecuting€a€petition€for€writ€of€òòhabeas€corpusóó.€òò€Seeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð ˆØ Ððð€29„21„107€(2000)€(requiring€verified€petition,€to€which€is€appended€a€copy€of€the€legal€processÐ tÄ Ðupon€which€the€restraint€is€based,€and€requiring€that€the€petition€state€the€specific€facts€of€theÐ `° Ðpetitionerððs€restraint€and€affirm€that€the€claim€of€illegality€of€the€restraint€has€not€previously€beenÐ L œ Ðbrought€and€that€the€application€is€a€first€application€for€the€writ,€or€if€not,€that€a€copy€of€anyÐ 8 ˆ Ðprevious€petition€and€proceedings€be€presented);€òòsee€also€Coxóó,€53€S.W.3d€at€292.€€Thus,€even€thoughÐ $ t Ðour€Code€sets€forth€no€statute€of€limitations€for€quests€to€obtain€a€writ€of€òòhabeas€corpusóó,€treating€theÐ  ` Ðpetitionerððs€proceeding€as€one€in€òòhabeas€corpusóó€is€not€beneficial€to€him.€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€an€aside,€we€note€that€we€have€considered€whether€Code€section€29„21„104Ð Ô$  Ðcompelled€the€trial€court€to€consider€òòhabeas€corpusóó€relief,€despite€the€petitionerððs€noncomplianceÐ À  Ðwith€the€requirements€for€òòhabeas€corpus€óóproceedings.€€Section€29„21„104€provides€that€when€a€courtÐ ¬ü  Ðwith€powers€to€issue€the€writ€ð ðhas€evidence,€from€a€judicial€proceeding,€that€any€person€within€theÐ ˜è  Ðjurisdiction€of€such€court€.€.€.€is€illegally€imprisoned€or€restrained€of€his€liberty,€it€is€the€duty€of€suchÐ „Ô  Ðcourt€.€.€.€to€issue€.€.€.€the€writ€.€.€.,€although€no€application€has€been€made€therefor.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ pÀ ÐAnn.€ðð€29„21„104€(2000).€€However,€in€the€present€case,€the€record€before€us€belies€the€petitionerððsÐ \¬ Ðcontention€that€his€June€21,€1994€plea€petition€did€not€include€charges€that€became€the€bases€forÐ H˜ Ðconvictions€and€sentences€listed€in€the€TOMIS€letter.€€We€have€reviewed€and€compared€the€TOMISÐ 4„ Ðlist€with€the€June€21,€1994€plea€petition€and€find€that€no€sentences€are€being€executed€upon€June€21,Ð  p Ð1994,€convictions€that€are€not€contained€in€the€June€21,€1994€plea€petition.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òó ó€€€Thus,€the€petitionerÐ  \ Ðalleged€no€basis€for€the€issuance€of€a€writ€of€òòhabeas€corpus.óóÐ øH ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€now€address€the€claim€of€misrepresentation€by€trial€counsel€and€conclude€that€itÐ Ð  Ðis€barred€by€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€counselÐ ¼  Ðmisrepresented€the€length€of€the€aggregate€sentence€resulting€from€the€charges€that€were€disposedÐ ¨ø Ðof€on€June€21,€1994€and€misrepresented€the€nature€of€the€60€percent€release€eligibility€date.€€HeÐ ”ä Ðargues€that,€in€òòWilliamsóó,€our€supreme€court€established€a€rule€that€attorney€misrepresentation€tollsÐ €Ð Ðthe€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€point€out€that€the€òòWilliamsóó€court€was€reviewing€attorney€ð ðmisrepresentation€inÐ D!” Ðfailing€to€properly€withdraw€from€representation€[following€this€courtððs€affirmance€on€appeal]€andÐ 0"€  Ðin€failing€to€notify€the€petitioner€that€no€application€for€permission€to€appeal€would€be€filed.ðð€Ð #l! ÐòòWilliamsóó,€44€S.W.3d€at€468€n.7.€€In€the€present€case,€the€petitioner€alleges€no€actions€by€trial€counselÐ $X" Ðthat€hampered€the€petitioner€from€presenting€his€claims€or€taking€an€appeal.€€Moreover,€theÐ ô$D # Ðpetitionerððs€June€21,€1994€plea€petition€recites€that€the€effective€42„year€sentence€imposed€on€theÐ à%0!$ ÐJune€21,€1994€convictions€would€run€consecutively€to€at€least€the€seven„year€effective€sentence,€Ð Ì&"% Ðò òó ówhich€was€imposed€in€1990€to€run€consecutively€to€the€1988€three„year€effective€sentence.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ ° Ðeffective€sentence€yielded€by€the€three€sets€of€convictions€is€52€years,€the€amount€calculated€by€theÐ œì ÐDepartment€of€Correction.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àFurthermore,€in€the€face€of€a€due€process€claim,€òòsee€Burford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204Ð `° Ð(Tenn.€1992),€this€court€has€held€that€a€ð ðpetitionerððs€lack€of€knowledge€that€he€had€grounds€for€aÐ L œ Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€until€after€the€statute€of€limitations€had€run€cannot€defeat€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðapplication€of€the€statute€of€limitations.ðð€€òòHoward€Templeton€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9406„CC„00220,Ð $ t Ðslip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€3,€1995).€€Petitioner€Templeton€claimed€in€that€caseÐ  ` Ðthat€his€trial€counsel€misinformed€him€that€his€35€percent€release€eligibility€date€meant€that€heÐ ü L  Ðð ðwould€be€releasedðð€upon€serving€35€percent€of€his€sentence€and€that€he€did€not€learn€of€theÐ è 8  Ðmisstatement€until€his€parole€was€denied€following€the€release€eligibility€date.€€òòId.€óó€Nevertheless,€thisÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€held€that€the€post„conviction€petition€filed€beyond€the€statute€of€limitations€was€barred€andÐ À  Ðsaid,€ð ðTo€hold€otherwise€would€defeat€the€purpose€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€protecting€theÐ ¬ü  ÐStateððs€interest€in€preventing€the€litigation€of€stale€and€fraudulent€claims€and€in€ensuringÐ ˜è  Ðadministrative€efficiency€and€economy.ðð€€òòId.€€óóIn€like€manner,€we€hold€that€the€instant€petitionerððsÐ „Ô  Ðclaim€of€counsel€misrepresentation€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€now€turn€to€the€petitionerððs€issue€that€he€should€have€been€allowed€to€proceedÐ H˜ Ðwith€his€claim€pursuant€to€the€Post„Conviction€DNA€Analysis€Act€of€2001.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.Ð 4„ Ððððð€40„30„401€through€„413€(Supp.€2001).€€€At€the€outset,€we€note€that€the€Act€contains€no€explicitÐ  p Ðstatute€of€limitations.€òòCf.€id.óó€ðð€40„30„202(a)€(1997)€(establishing€one„year€post„conviction€statuteÐ  \ Ðof€limitations€that€governs€petitions€pursuant€to€Part€2€of€Title€40,€Chapter€30€(Post„ConvictionÐ øH ÐProcedure€Act));€òòid.óó€ðð€40„30„401€(Supp.€2001)€(Post„Conviction€DNA€Analysis€Act€of€2001€set€forthÐ ä4 Ðin€Part€4).€òò€óóPersons€convicted€of€certain€crimes€may€petition€the€trial€court€and€request€ð ðforensicÐ Ð  ÐDNA€analysis€of€any€evidence€that€is€in€the€possession€or€control€of€the€prosecution,€lawÐ ¼  Ðenforcement,€laboratory,€or€court,€and€that€is€related€to€the€investigation€or€prosecution€that€resultedÐ ¨ø Ðin€the€judgment€of€conviction€and€that€may€contain€biological€evidenceððòòóó;€even€so,€petitionersÐ ”ä Ðconvicted€of€burglary€or€theft€may€only€file€the€petition€ð ðat€the€direction€of€the€trial€judge.ðð€òòId.€óóðð€40„Ð €Ð Ð30„403€(Supp.€2001).€€A€trial€court€shall€order€the€DNA€analysis€if€it€finds€that:Ð l¼ ÐÌÒ` °ÒÒ` °Òà ¸ à(1)€A€reasonable€probability€exists€that€the€petitioner€wouldÐ D!” Ðnot€have€been€prosecuted€or€convicted€ifòò€óóexculpatory€results€had€beenÐ 0"€  Ðobtained€through€DNA€analysis;Ð #l! ÐÌà ¸ à(2)€The€evidence€is€still€in€existence€and€in€such€a€conditionÐ ô$D # Ðthat€DNA€analysis€may€be€conducted;Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà ¸ à(3)€The€evidence€was€never€previously€subjected€to€DNAÐ ¸'#& Ðanalysis€or€was€not€subjected€to€the€analysis€that€is€now€requestedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðwhich€could€resolve€an€issue€not€resolved€by€previous€analysis;€andÐ )à$( Їà ¸ à(4)€The€application€for€analysis€is€made€for€the€purpose€ofÐ ° Ðdemonstrating€innocence€and€not€to€unreasonably€delay€the€executionÐ œì Ðof€sentence€or€administration€of€justice.òòÐ ˆØ ÐÌÒ°` ÒÒ°` ÒId.óó€ðð€40„30„404€(Supp.€2001).€€When€a€petition€is€filed,€the€court€ð ðmay€in€its€discretion€make€suchÐ `° Ðother€orders€as€may€be€appropriate.ðð€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„30„411€(Supp.€2001).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€our€view,€the€post„conviction€judge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€declining€toÐ $ t Ðð ðdirectðð€the€advancement€of€the€petitionerððs€DNA€analysis€request.€€In€his€petition,€the€petitionerÐ  ` Ðsought€analysis€of€€ð ð[some]€items€in€state€possession€which€were€used€as€ðð[prosecution€exhibits]ðð€toÐ ü L  Ðconvict€Petitioner€.€.€.€[and]€can€prove€his€innocence€through€DNA€analysis.€€The€test€results€wouldÐ è 8  Ðshow€the€identity€of€the€real€perpetrator€of€said€crimes.ðð€€The€petition€then€requested€discovery€ð ðfromÐ Ô$  Ðthe€state€in€order€to€fully€identify€the€items€.€.€.€which€are€best€suited€for€DNA€analysis.ððÐ À  ÐÌà  àà ` àThese€allegations€utterly€fail€to€demonstrate€bases€upon€which€the€post„convictionÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€could€make€the€findings€required€by€Code€section€40„30„404,€and€accordingly,€they€fail€to€stateÐ „Ô  Ða€claim€pursuant€to€the€Act.€€We€hold€that€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€summarily€dismissing€thisÐ pÀ Ðclaim.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àHaving€now€reviewed€all€of€the€issues€raised€by€the€petitioner€on€appeal,€we€affirmÐ 4„ Ðthe€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€òòÐ  p ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àóóà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ¼  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE