ÿWPC„ …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — w@¦ 0Jæ 0T0 0^„ 0hâ 0rJ 0|¼ 0†8 0¾ 1uN 0dÃU>'U*eB)DC¸ AMû¶H Bþv~vÓ™ D3l 0@Ÿ AO߯. 0Dô D/8 Bg˜HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÚƒç"3|xP <[=>E?@ABC eDUEÓ€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¬Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òSeptemberÏ30,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€FKXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ Ԝـ€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌà@ àAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌÌJACKIE€SLAGLE,à àà àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9611„CR„00429€Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà à*à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÌÓÓVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBy€designation€ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à*à àÌÌòòÌÌFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÌJackie€Slagle,€Pro€Seà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ140253€NECCà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€5000ÌMountain€City,€TN€€37683„5000à àà àSandy€R.€Copous€Ì(on€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌMarty€Browder,€Attorneyà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà à€€ÌDistrict€Public€Defender's€OfficeÌ155€Shelby€Streetà àà àà àà àJoseph€Eugene€PerrinÌKingsport,€TN€€37660à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ(at€evidentiary€hearing)à àà àà àBlountville,€TN€€37617Ìà àà àà àÌÌÌÌœÌÌÌÌOPINION›€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner,€Jackie€Slagle,€appeals€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€single€issue€presented€for€our€review€isÏwhether€the€petition€was€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€May€30,€1990,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€rapeÏand€aggravated€œkidnapping›.€€The€trial€court€imposed€Range€I,€twenty„five€andÏfifteen„year€concurrent€sentences.€€The€court€affirmed€the€convictions€andÏsentences€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Jackie€Slagleóó,€No.€03C01„9101„CR„00026Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€15,€1991).€€Although€counsel€for€the€petitionerÏwas€granted€additional€time,€until€October€16,€1991,€within€which€to€file€anÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court,€no€application€wasÏmade,€and€a€mandate€issued€from€this€court€on€November€25,€1991.€€In€this€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief,€filed€August€2,€1996,€petitioner€complains€that€he€wasÏdeprived€of€his€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€on€appeal€due€to€theÏfailure€to€either€withdraw€and€advise€petitioner€of€appeal€procedures€or€file€anÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court.€€The€petitioner€insistsÏthat€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€relief.€€ÌÌà àà àOrdinarily,€the€petitioner€would€prevail.€€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2dÏ676,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€has€traditionally€governed€the€procedure€forÏobtaining€a€delayed€appeal.€€The€holding€in€òòPinkstonóó€required€the€trial€court€to€holdÏan€evidentiary€hearing€and€make€findings€of€fact.€€The€defendant€then€had€toÏappeal€to€this€court€for€relief€in€the€form€of€vacating€and€re„entering€its€originalÏopinion.€€òòId.óó€at€677„78.€€In€1995,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€adopted€Rule€28,ÏTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.,€which€established€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Post„ConvictionÏProcedure.€€This€new€rule,€which€was€in€effect€at€the€time€the€petition€in€this€caseÏwas€filed,€provides€as€follows:€Ìà8 àà8 àÓÓ(D)€€If€the€court€finds€that€petitioner€was€deprived€of€theÏright€to€request€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€11,ÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure,€the€court€shallÏmake€and€certify€such€a€finding€and€shall€enter€an€orderÏgranting€petitioner€thirty€(30)€days€to€seek€Rule€11Ïreview.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€9€(D)€(as€originally€adopted€on€November€17,€1995).€€RuleÏ28€was€amended€on€October€28,€1996,€to€provide€as€follows:ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(D)€€Grant€of€a€Delayed€Appeal„„Upon€determination€byÏthe€trial€court€or€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€thatÏpetitioner€was€deprived€of€the€right€to€request€an€appealÏpursuant€to€Rule€11,€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure,€the€petitioner€shall€have€sixty€(60)€days€toÏseek€Rule€11€review.€€ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ  ÒÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓTenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28,€ðð€9€(D)€(as€amended€on€October€28,€1996).ÌÌà àà àThe€problem,€of€course,€is€that€the€statute€of€limitations€bars€any€relief.€ÏEven€if€the€remedy€sought€is€in€the€nature€of€a€delayed€appeal,€the€petition€is€stillÏsubject€to€the€time€constraints€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€òòHandley€v.ÏStateóó,€889€S.W.2d€223€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Originally,€the€Post„ConvictionÏProcedure€Act€of€1967€did€not€include€a€statute€of€limitations.€€Effective€July€1,Ï1986,€the€General€Assembly€adopted€a€three„year€statute€of€limitations.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed€1995).€€In€consequence,€any€petitioner€whoseÏjudgment€had€become€final€before€July€1,€1986,€had€only€three€years€thereafter€toÏfile€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòState€v.€Masuccióó,€754€S.W.2d€90€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988).€€ÌÌà àà àHere,€the€petitioner€was€subject€to€that€three„year€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€The€statute€allowed€the€petitioner€three€years€from€"the€date€of€the€finalÏaction€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€[was]€taken...."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed€1995).€€The€1995€amendment€did€not€enlargeÏthe€time€within€which€this€petitioner€could€file,€as€"the€enabling€provision€...€is€notÏintended€to€revive€claims€that€were€barred€by€the€previous€[three„year]€statute€ofÏlimitations."€€òòArnold€Carter€v.€Stateóó,€____€S.W.2d€____,€No.€03„S„01„9612„CR„00117,€slip€op.€at€6€(Tenn.,€at€Knoxville,€Sept.€8,€1997).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204,€208€(Tenn.€1992),€our€supremeÏcourt€held€that€in€certain€situations€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding€would€violate€due€process.€€In€determining€whether€thereÏhas€been€a€violation€of€due€process,€the€essential€question€is€whether€the€timeÏperiod€allowed€by€law€provides€petitioner€a€fair€and€reasonable€opportunity€to€fileÏsuit.€€òòId.óó€€In€òòBurfordóó,€the€petitioner€could€not€file€within€the€three„year€limitationÏabsent€a€determination€on€his€prior€post„conviction€petition.€€Our€supreme€courtÏruled€that€Mr.€Burford€was€"caught€in€a€procedural€trap€and€unable€to€initiateÏlitigation€...€despite€the€approach€of€the€three„year€limitation."€€òòId.óó€€There€was€noÏsuch€trap€here.€€à àÌÌà àà àIn€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995),€our€supreme€courtÏfurther€defined€how€to€apply€the€òòBurfordóó€test.€€A€court€must:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€determine€when€the€limitations€period€wouldÏnormally€have€begun€to€run;€(2)€determine€whether€theÏgrounds€for€relief€actually€arose€after€the€limitationsÏperiod€would€normally€have€commenced;€and€(3)€if€theÏgrounds€are€"later€arising,"€determine€if,€under€the€factsÏof€the€case,€a€strict€application€of€the€limitations€periodÏwould€effectively€deny€the€petitioner€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€present€the€claim.€€In€making€this€finalÍdetermination,€courts€should€carefully€weigh€theÏpetitioner's€liberty€interest€in€"collaterally€attackingÏconstitutional€violations€occurring€during€the€convictionÏprocess,"€against€the€state's€interest€in€preventing€theÏlitigation€of€"stale€and€fraudulent€claims."ÌÌòòÓÓSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301€(citations€omitted)€(quoting€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€207,Ï208).ÌÌà àà àBy€the€use€of€these€guidelines,€we€have€first€determined€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€for€this€petitioner's€convictions€began€to€run€in€October,€1991,Ïwhen€no€application€for€permission€to€appeal€was€filed€within€the€required€timeÏperiod.€€Second,€petitioner's€grounds€for€relief€are€based€on€claims€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Such€grounds€arose€well€before€the€limitations€periodÏcommenced.€€Thus,€petitioner's€claim€fails€to€meet€the€second€requirement€ofÏòòSandsóó€in€that€it€is€not€later€arising.€€Nothing€prevented€the€petitioner€from€raisingÏthe€issue€before€the€three„year€period€of€opportunity€expired.€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌÓÓWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge