WPC hdgoЈy:I= sԙ<4a!,*t~,av tK+~ȶ@o%CFjeukZߜঢ়Z(Lﰃܖ镍]u8n{svlښViCX+Y6D%eBcR|Ҫ^h "͉8sxCh;!.UWdt^bXeM n|$.NY(*r$>6$HG|fޯKkLƢkd!MQO9~mcc:g.෻>Uu7ɣ7,?ԫ]FaB.[%,$0t#&ay-gZ]_X9ofQ X!~pط&U>R 0 0 0<f 0< 0~ 0 \ 0nL 06 0 D+p A @ < oF @ o Bj 0C  0} B- B 0#sUN< %M(N^ w4 mb\  `&Times New Roman'  AOCUSER0AOCUSER .   6Y L4Heading 1  X XXX           X XXX64 '4Heading 2            <:Default Para<:Footnote Ref6$$ 4Body Text        <ZZ :Body Text I1     8.` ` hp x (#8     8.` hp x (#8< :Footnote TexXXX0.Strong <"" :Body Text In  X       X 'dxd &Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK WPC i K513%)+-51d~ - WPC i K513%)+-51d~ - d($      I!..      X,eXXXX,eXXX,e  _B.` hp x (#XB XX,e             1  D  ݀In1995,thestatuteoflimitationsforpostconvictionspetitionswasshortenedtoone(1)yearfromthedate  ofthefinalactionofthehighestappellatecourttowhichanappealwastaken;theeffectivedateofthenewactwasMay o 10,1995.However,becausethetimeforthepetitionerspostconvictionpetitionhadexpiredpriortotheeffectivedate .~ oftheamendment,hisclaimisunaffectedbyitsenactment.X,eX(2M$ I!..      X,eXXXX,eXXX,e  ,eXXX,e  0  )Hairline d  d#|x(rI$..      X"XXXX"XXX"\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularXK1 b.:i+00U- - I!..      X,eXXXX,eXXX,e  _         0p x (#X0WAXX,e%8,eXXdd8  QhhTWAINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  QRR$ATKNOXVILLEWATԈ    H.` hp x (#X(#HAssignedonBriefsSeptember28,2004 > X,eXWAWAXX,e JAMESMARVINMARTINv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX,eXWA  0  DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforKnoxCounty  " No.77512Richard_Baumgartner_,Judge   -  XX,e  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEj K Kj2 -  X,eX No.E200400740CCAR3PCFiledOctober11,_2004_ _  -  XX,e  k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE+ K K+2 -  X,eX    Thepetitioner,JamesMarvinMartin,appealsthedenialofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,  p  arguingthatthepostconvictioncourterredinfindingthathisclaimwasbeyondthestatuteof V limitations.Aftercarefulreview,weaffirmthedenialofthepetition. <   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtAffirmed     JohnEverettWilliams,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_Ԁand  DavidH.Welles,JJ.,joined. j _Liddell_ԀKirk,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JamesMarvinMartin. 6 PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;DavidH._Findley_,AssistantAttorney R General;RandallEugene_Nichols_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andPhilipH.Morton,Assistant 8 DistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.     OPINION  FactsandProceduralHistory  f!!     In1989,thepetitionerwasconvictedoftwocountsofaggravated_kidnapping_Ԁandtwo 2## countsofarmedrobbery.AsentenceoflifeinprisonwasimposedpursuanttotheHabitual $h$ CriminalAct.In1990,thisCourtreversedthepetitionerstwo_kidnapping_Ԁconvictions,holding $N % thattheywereincidentaltotherobberies,butotherwiseupheldtheremainingconvictionsand %4!& sentences.Statev.JamesMarvinMartin,C.C.A.No.1301,1990Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS482 &"' (Tenn._Crim_.App.,atKnoxville,July24,1990),perm.app.granted(Tenn.1990).The '#( TennesseeSupremeCourtaffirmedtheholdingonSeptember23,1991.Statev.Anthony,817 (#) S.W.2d299(Tenn.1991). |)$*   OnJune23,2003,thepetitionerfiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionrelief,averring H+&, thatheshouldbeexcusedfromtheapplicablestatuteoflimitations,whichhadatthattime .,~'- expired,andrequestingthatcounselbeappointedtohim.OnJuly25,2003,thecourtappointed -d(. counseltothepetitionerandanamendedpetitionwasfiled,allegingadenialofdueprocessand -J)/ _ineffectiveassistanceofcounselforfailuretochallengetheimpositionofhabitualcriminal  statusfollowingthedismissaloftheaggravatedkidnappingconvictions.    Thedirectappealopinionrecitesasuccinctsummaryofthefactsunderlyingthe b conviction: H     E.` ` hp x (#X(#E  X XB+ ` hp x ` X(#B  OnthenoonhourofFebruary24,1986,AnnaMarieJohnsonobservedappellant . ~ standingonthestreetlookingintheMcMillanInsuranceofficelocatedat3905  d AshevilleHighwayinKnoxville.Thewitness,fromherofficewindow,watched  J asappellantpulledapistolfromhiscoatandenteredtheinsuranceoffice.C.H.  0 McMillan,Sr.testifiedthathewasonthephonewhenappellantapproachedhim    withadrawngun.TheappellantproceededtorobMcMillanandhissecretary,    RuthNeedham,of$41.00and$151.00,respectively.Astheappellantwas   leaving,heorderedbothintotherestroom.Uponenteringtheroom,Mr. x  McMillanclosedandlockedthedoor.Therobberthenleft,andMr.McMillan ^  creptoutandobservedtheappellantenteringhisautomobile.Mr.McMillan D  identifiedtheappellantastherobberatbothaphotolineupandatthetrial.Itwas *z  furtherstipulatedatthetrialthatthecardescribedbyMr.McMillanbelongedto ` appellant.݌ F Ќ  X  $ X(#X $      E.` ` hp x (#X(#E  R  B+ ` hp x ` X(#BJamesMarvinMartin,1990Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS482,at*2.R݌ , Ќ    $ X(#X $      E.` ` hp x (#X(#E      XE.` hp x (#` X(#E  ThepostconvictioncourtheldahearingonMarch11,2004,inwhichthepetitionerwas  theonlywitness.Thepetitionertestifiedthat,followinghissentencing,trialcounseltoldhim  thatshewouldbeunabletoconducthisappealbecauseshewouldbeleavingtownandsuggested t thatheretainnewcounselfortheappeal.Thepetitionerstatedthattrialcounseldid,however, Z remainascounselofrecordandfiledtheappealonhisbehalf,unbeknownsttohim. ݌ @ Ќ    $ X(#X(#$          ݌̌        Thepetitionertestifiedthathewasunabletoreachtrialcounselduringthistimeand,  \ unawareofthereversalofhiskidnappingconvictions,allowedthetimeforfilinghispost B convictionpetitiontoexpire.Hestatedthatthirteenyearsaftertheappealwasfiled,he ( discoveredfromafellowinmatethathiskidnappingconvictionshadbeenreversedand  thereafterfiledhisprosepetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Becausehewasunawareofthe  dispositionoftheappealoreventhatithadconcluded,thepetitioneraversthathehadno   reasonableopportunitytofileapetitionforpostconvictionreliefand,thus,heshouldbe p!  excusedfromthestatuteoflimitations. V"!   Oncrossexamination,thepetitionerstatedthathewasawareofhisabilitytofileapost "$r# convictionpetitionimmediatelyafterhistrial.Moreover,thepetitioneradmittedthathe %X $ requestedhisrecordsfromtheclerksofficein1992,arguablyforthepurposesofinitiating %>!% furtherproceedings,yetheneverfiledapostconvictionpetitionuntilJune2003.Finally,he &$"& admittedthathetooknoactiontofollowupontheappealhimselfortoretainnewcounsel,even ' #' thoughtrialcounselrecommendedthathedoso. (#(  XAttheconclusionofthehearing,thepostconvictioncourtdismissedthepetition,finding l*%* thatitwasfiledbeyondtheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsandthattheallegationthattheclaims R+&+ werelaterarisingwaswithoutmerit.Specifically,thecourtfoundthat,becausethediscovery 8,', ruledoesnotapply,theclaimaroseonSeptember23,1991,thedateofthelastactionofan  appellatecourt,regardlessofthepetitionersknowledgeoftheclaimsexistence.Bearingthisin  mind,thecourtfoundthatwheretherewasnolaterarisingclaim,therewasnoneedtoproceed | tothebalancingtestfoundinSandsforafurtherdeterminationofwhetherthepetitionershould b beabletoproceedwithhisclaim.Thereafter,thepetitionerfiledatimelyappealtothiscourt. H  . ~  X  XX,eXXX,e        X&  `)  ANALYSIS`)*  )Ԍ  d Ќ     X,eXXX,e  XR) hXCEUS.,' *  J  XhThepetitionercontendsthatthestatuteoflimitationsonhispostconvictionpetition  0 shouldbetolledbecausehisdueprocessrightswereviolated;specifically,thepetitioneravers    thatbecausehewasunawareofthedispositionofhisappeal,oreventhatithadconcluded,he    wasdeniedanyreasonableopportunitytofileforpostconvictionreliefwithinthelimitations   period.USCE.,Oursupremecourthasheldthat,undersomecircumstances,constitutionaldueprocess x  requiresthatthestatutorylimitationsperiodforrequestingpostconvictionreliefnotbestrictly ^  applied.SeeSandsv.State,903S.W.2d297(Tenn.1995);Burfordv.State,845S.W.2d204 D  (Tenn.1992).Succinctlystated,thetestiswhetherthetimeperiodprovidesanapplicanta *z  reasonableopportunitytohavetheclaimedissueheardanddetermined.Burford,845S.W.2dat ` 208.Toaidinthisdetermination,athreesteptestwasformulatedinSandstoapplytheBurford F ruletospecificfactsituations;thistestwasemployedbythepostconvictioncourtintheinstant , matterandisinstructiveinthisappeal.Underthistest,thecourtshoulddetermine:1)whenthe  limitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun;2)whetherthegroundsforreliefactually  aroseafterthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced;and3)ifthegroundsare   laterarising,determineif,underthefactsofthecase,astrictapplicationofthelimitations t periodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim. Z Sands,903S.W.2dat301. @  &v  l<` Beginningwiththefirststep,thepostconvictioncourtproperlyfoundthatthelimitations  \ periodbegantorunonSeptember23,1991,thedateofthefinalactionofthehighestappellate B courttowhichanappealwastaken.Thelimitationsperiodwouldthusexpirethreeyearsfrom ( thatdate,onSeptember23,1994.     1      4  ݀    Thesecondstepistodeterminewhethertheclaimactuallyaroseafterthelimitations   periodwouldhavecommenced.Thepostconvictioncourtfoundthattherewasnotalater p!  arisingclaimbecausethepetitionersclaimaroseonSeptember23,1991,regardlessofthe V"! petitionersknowledgeonthatdatethattheclaimexisted.Thepostconvictioncourtfoundthat, <#"  Wedonotoperateunderadiscoveryruletheory.HisclaimaroseonSeptember23rd,1991. "$r# Weagreewiththefindingofthepostconvictioncourt. %X $  %>!% ThisCourthasheldthatthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitationsdoesnotincludean &$"& explicitorimplicitdiscoveryrule.Passarellav.State,891S.W.2d619,62425(Tenn.Crim. ' #' App.,July28,1994)(citingDarrellEugeneWarrenv.State,No.03C019210CR00372,1993 (#( Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS577,at*3(Tenn.Crim.App.,atKnoxville,Aug.17,1993),perm.app.  denied(Tenn.1994)).InWarrenv.State,thepetitionercontendedthatthestatuteoflimitations  shouldhavetolleduntilhelearnedthatcertainconstitutionalviolationshadoccurred;ineffect, | thepetitionertriedto superimposeadiscoveryruleoverthepostconvictionstatuteof b limitations.Warren,1993Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS577,at*34.ThisCourtrejectedthe H petitionerscontentionandheldthatadiscoveryrulecannotbeengrafteduponthestatuteof . ~ limitations,whichiswhollystatutoryandunambiguousinitsaccrual.Id.at*4;seealsoMonroe  d Brownv.State,No.01C019112CR00367,1992Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS659(Tenn.Crim.  J App.,atNashville,Aug.6,1992).  0     Intheinstantcase,thepetitionersclaimaroseonthedateofthefinalactionofthe    highestappellatecourtinwhichanappealwastaken.Thisisthedatefromwhichthestatuteis   torun,anditcannotbealteredmerelybecausethepetitionerfailedtoinquireastothestatusof x  hiscaseandfailedtotakeanyactioninpursuanceofpostconvictionreliefwithinthestatutory ^  period.Therefore,theclaimisnot laterarising,andthereisnoneedtoproceedtothe D  balancingtestdescribedinstepthree. *z   ` Dueprocessisnotimplicatedbecausethepetitionerhadreasonableopportunitytohave F hisclaimheard.Thepetitionertestifiedthatheknewofhisabilitytofileapostconvictionrelief , petitionin1990andevenspokewithotherinmatesaboutfilingapostconvictionpetition,yethe  failedtodosowithinthestatutoryperiod.Moreover,herequestedrecordsfromtheclerks  officein1992forthepurposeofinitiatingfurtherproceedings,yethenevertookanyother  actionuntilJune2003.Finally,theappealswereamatterofpublicrecord,thusanyinformation t hedesiredaboutthestatusofhiscasewouldhavebeeneasilyobtainable.Therefore,weagree Z withthereasoningofthepostconvictioncourtandaffirmthedenialofthepetitionerspost @ convictionpetitionasitistimebarred. &v   \ Eveniftheclaimwerenottimebarred,itiswithoutmerit.Postconvictionproceedings B maynotbeusedtoraiseandrelitigateissuesdecidedanddisposedofondirectappeal.See,e.g., ( Statev.Wright,475S.W.2d546(Tenn.1972);Longv.State,510S.W.2d83(Tenn.Crim.App.  1974).Thepetitioneraverredthathistrialcounselwasineffectiveinfailingtochallengehis  habitualoffenderstatuswhenhiskidnappingconvictionswereoverturned.However,thisCourt   explicitlystatedinitsdirectappealthat, p!     XX    X X XB+ ` hp x X(#B F  Thearmedrobberycaseswerethetriggeringoffensessustainingthejuryverdict V"! findingappellantinbothinstancestobeahabitualoffender....Thereismore <#" thansufficientevidencetosustainappellantstwoconvictionsofarmedrobbery "$r# anditsenhancedpunishmentforbeinganhabitualoffendertoconfinementfor %X $ life.Thus,theappellantstwoconvictionsforarmedrobberyandconfinementas %>!% anhabitualcriminalfortwoconcurrentlifesentencesareaffirmed. FoG݌ &$"& Ќ    X     XX     1J  X X XE.` hp x (#X EJamesMarvinMartin,1990Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS482,at*3and*5. 1JrJ݌ ' #' Ќ    X   (#(  )$)   l*%*  ` Therefore,thisCourtdeterminedthatthereversaloftheaggravatedkidnapping  chargeshadnobearingonthepetitionersstatusasahabitualoffender.Thus,thepetitioners  allegationsagainsthistrialcounselwerenotcognizableinapostconvictionproceeding. |   b         &  lM  ConclusionlMM  MԌ H Ќ       . ~ CEUS.,  ` Basedontheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,thepostconvictioncourts  d dismissalofthepetitionisaffirmed.'HM  J  hX  0     y      h  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#____________________________________x (#(#  X E.` hp x (#X(#EUSCE.,ԀJOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE ^  O X   E.` hp x (#X(#E