WPC*" U:V % 0w@r 4  0   0D 0J9 0T 0^ 0h5 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0dU *zB) BDC AM-z/)v~v? D3 0@E AO  0D! D/! B ",cAZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  ghEijUkUlmDnUopӀڃ"3|x{((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7    `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d7Border 1dd- C << G  !  #d#    ! \RA'\#d#      YYY FILEDX January12,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7XXdd7     TheStatecorrectlyarguesthattheappellantfailedtofilehisnoticeofappealwithinthethirtydaytimeperiodallowedbyRule4oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.SeeTenn.R.App.P.4(a).However,intheinterestofjustice,weaddresstheappellantsclaims.  !#d#     \RA'\#d#   \RA'\7XXdd7     Thetrialcourts OrderofDismissalreflects [t]hattheentryofthejudgmentin[5]fiveofthesecaseswasOctober17,1994,andinonecasethedateofJanuary25,1995.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva 'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .      \RA'\#Xd##Xd#      `  X R!" A1-j|` e `@R @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ DECEMBERSESSION,1997PERRYMcDONALD,  )     ) No.03C019703CC00103 Appellant   )     ) BRADLEYCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.STEVER.BEBB,JudgeSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  )     ) (PostConviction) Appellee   ) FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee: PerryMcDonald,ProSe    JohnKnoxWalkup NortheastCorrectional   AttorneyGeneralandReporter̀Center,No.240535 P.O.Box5000    TimothyF.Behan MountainCity,TN376835000  AssistantAttorneyGeneral        CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493    OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes Judge@ OPINION  Theappellant,PerryMcDonald,appealsthejudgmentofthetrialcourtsummarilydismissinghispetitionforpostconvictionrelief. #   ׀Hispetitionallegesthatheiscurrentlyservinganeffectivesentenceofseventysixyearsimprisonmentfollowinghisconvictionsforespeciallyaggravatedkidnapping,aggravatedrape,aggravatedrobbery,twocountsofaggravatedburglary,andtheft.JudgmentsofconvictionwereenteredonOctober10,1994,followingtheappellantsguiltypleastotheseoffenses. $   ׀Inhisprosepetition,heallegesasgroundsforrelief:(1)involuntaryguiltypleas;(2)ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel;and(3)defectiveindictment.Thetrialcourtfoundtheappellantsclaimsbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.Theappellantappealsfromthisruling. Afterreview,weaffirm.@ ANALYSIS  Theappellantarguesthatthetrialcourterredinrulingthathispetitionistimebarredfortworeasons.First,onthedatehisguiltypleaswereentered,theapplicablestatuteoflimitationsperiodwasthreeyears.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102(repealed1995).Accordingly,hearguesthatanyreductionofthethreeyearperiodviolatesdueprocessandthedictatesofSandsv.State,903S.W.2d297,301(Tenn.1995).Infurthersupportofthisposition,hecitesasauthoritythiscourtsdecisioninCarterv.State,No.03C019509CC00270,(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,July11,1996),revd,952S.W.2d417(Tenn.1997).Second,theappellantcontendsthathisclaimofadefectiveindictmentraises subjectmatterjurisdictionalquestionswhichmaybepresentedatanytimeandcannotbewaived.Specifically,hearguesthattheindictmentlanguagecharginghimwithaggravatedrapefailedtochargeacriminaloffense.Insupport,theappellantcitesStatev.Hill,No.01C019508CC00267(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,June20,1996),revd,954S.W.2d725(Tenn.1997).TheappellantsrelianceuponCarterandHillismisplaced.Bothofthesecaseshavebeenreversedbyoursupremecourt.Carter,952S.W.2dat417;Hill954S.W.2dat725. WenotethatthechallengedindictmentinHillandtheinstantcaseinvolvethesamecriminaloffense,aggravatedrape.Thus,Hillisthelawofthecase.Moreover,thechallengedindictmentinthepresentcasewasnotincludedintherecord.Itisincumbentupontheappellanttopreparearecordthatincludesallmaterialnecessaryforreviewofhisappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24(b).Absentthenecessaryrelevantmaterialintherecord,anappellatecourtcannotconsiderthemeritsoftheissue.Statev.Ballard,855S.W.2d557,56061(Tenn.1993).Accordingly,wefindnomerittotheappellantsargumentthattheindictmentwasdefective. Inreferencetotheappellantsdueprocessclaim,wenotethathispetitionforpostconvictionreliefwasfiledonOctober2,1996.Thus,hispetitionisgovernedbythePostConvictionProcedureActineffectonthedateoffiling.InDanielsv.State,03C019606CC00244(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Feb.27,1997),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.Sept.29,1997),wearticulatedthreecategoriesofpetitionerscreatedbythe1995PostConvictionProcedureAct,whichwasineffectonthedatethispetitionwasfiled.8 ThenewPostConvictionProcedureActbecameeffective8 May10,1995,reducingthestatuteoflimitationsperiodfrom8 threeyearstooneyear.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(a)8 (1995Supp.)Section3ofTenn.Pub.Act207,whichisnot8 codified,butisnotedintheCompilersNotes,Tenn.CodeAnn.8 4030201(1995Supp.),providesthat anypersonhaving8 groundforreliefrecognizedunderthispartshallhaveatleast8 oneyearfromMay10,1995,tofileapetition...underthis8 part.Thus,thelimitationprovisionofthenewAct,ineffect,8 createsthreepotentialcategoriesofpetitioners,whosepetition8 isfiledonorafterMay10,1995.(1)Thosepetitionerswhose8 threeyearstatuteoflimitationshasextinguishedanyremedy8 availableundertheAct;(2)Thosepetitionerswhosethreeyear8 periodwas cutshortbytheenactmentofthenewoneyear8 statuteoflimitations.Theeffectuponthepetitionerinthis8 groupisthatthethreeyearlimitationsperiodwillbereduced8 tooneyearplustheperiodfromthedateofthepetitionersfinal8 convictionandMay9,1995.Finally,(3),...thosepetitioners8 whosethreeyearlimitationperiodexpiredduringtheperiod8 betweenMay10,1995,andMay9,1996.Apetitionerinthis8 categorywould,ineffect,begrantedanenlargementofthethree8 yearlimitationperiod,conceivablytoamaximumperiodofone8 daylessthanfouryears....8 ThelegislativeintentbehindtheActisclear,i.e., tolimit8 thenumberofpostconvictionpetitionsthatadefendantcouldfile8 andtoreducethetimeinwhichhecouldfilethem.SeeCarter,No.03C019509CC00270(Welles,J.,dissenting).Theappellantfallswithinthesecondcategory.Sincehewasconvictedin1994and1995,histimetofileapostconvictionpetitionwaseffectively cutshortbythenewActwhichwentintoeffectonMay10,1995.Insteadofhavingthreeyearsfromthedateoftheconvictioninwhichtofileapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,theappellanthadonlyfromthedateofhisconvictionstoMay9,1996.Accordingly,becausethepetitionwasfiledonOctober4,1996,itwastimebarred. Wefindtheappellantsdueprocessargumentwithoutmerit.SeeCarothersv.State,No.01C019610CR00455(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Dec.4,1997)(holdingthatappellantswerenotdeprivedofdueprocesswhosestatutorytimeperiodwaseffectively cutshortbythenewAct).Fortheforegoingreasons,weconcludethatthetrialcourtwascorrectinsummarilydismissingtheappellantspetition.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:________________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,Judge________________________________THOMAST.WOODALL,Judge