WPC R9:@P$[ $Ĺ@HٺwKꨳu[:;4)_RHA+Xkakww u+U_Qǜ\&F*DrΊ:*o+Pͭȹ qMh m1yc+OEd,3B6ܿid-ZTdMKeΈkJ7O $ X4j8uG$㬘b*@e|K.&ܾk]xd3 ŧȻƘ7r_Zs0@ pڍN.uUK5U>4Zul_0&^):$Ŵ/?)BpzI_WEkՄg~X%C=6>닣`8:rҺ'C';h'HשP;C]+R'µ bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1NEb   0D 0!    B 0 D3 D- 0K ASC 0\ 0D AD(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    m-s PH,1'3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - -  R]$      1    _Ifthepersonentitledtocommenceanactionis,atthetimethecauseofactionaccrued,eitherundertheage  ofeighteen(18)years,orofunsoundmind,suchperson,orsuchperson'srepresentativesandprivies,asthecasemay t be,maycommencetheaction,aftertheremovalofsuchdisability,withinthetimeoflimitationfortheparticularcause 8 ofaction,unlessitexceedsthree(3)years,andinthatcasewithinthree(3)yearsfromtheremovalofsuchdisability. L Tenn.CodeAnn.281106.(#$  0  (|G2]$ !.8#dd8         0    R]$      2    _Moreover,weareconstrainedtonotethatwerewetoadopttheAppellantsargument,theStatecouldconvict  ajuvenileoffenderasanadult,yettheoffenderwouldbedeniedtherecourseofcollateralreviewoftheconviction t processbecauseofhislegaldisabilityasaminor. d(|3Gh$ !.8#dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Gh$ !.8#dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8#dd8     _   #8PXXdd8@tt0#INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE##0 #Ԉ &    @  @` June18,2002Session L XPX# ##XXP#QUINTONG.STEWARTv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXPX#  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforRutherfordCounty  J @@No.F50510JamesK.Clayton,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200101988CCAR3PCFiledAugust12,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      XPXXXPTheAppellant,QuintonG.Stewart,appealstheRutherfordCountyCircuitCourtssummary x  dismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief.ThepostconvictioncourtfoundthatStewarts d petitionwasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.Stewartarguesthathispetitionwasnottimebarred P becausehewasaminorand,thus, legallydisabledtoexercisehisrightsunderthepostconviction < statutes.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.281106(2000).Afterreview,weaffirmthejudgmentofthepost (x convictioncourtdismissingthepetition.#XPXX XP###XXP#XPX# d  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed.  <   ##XP#XPX.#DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE.GlennandRobertW.  Wedemeyer,JJ.,joined.  PatrickT.McNally,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,QuintonG.Stewart.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;KimR. ` Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;WilliamC._Whitesell_,Jr.,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,forthe L  Appellee,StateofTennessee. 8!  ##XXP#XPX#b@@OO& OPINION ##XXP #XPX# #L#  FactualBackground  %$!% ##XXP #  XPX# XPXXXP  TheAppellantwaschargedwithfirstdegreemurderwhenhewassixteenyearsold.The '"' Appellantwassubsequentlyindictedforfirstdegreemurder,followingatransferhearingfrom (#( juvenilecourttoRutherfordCountyCircuitCourt.OnAugust11,1999,pursuanttoanegotiated )$) pleaagreement,theAppellant,thenseventeenyearsold,pledguiltytoseconddegreemurderand p*%* receivedasentenceoftwentyfiveyearsintheDepartmentofCorrection.TheAppellantturned \+&+ eighteenyearsoldonMay1,2000. H,',  4-(-   OnApril27,2001,theAppellantfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,allegingthathe  receivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselbaseduponthefollowinggrounds:  8  1.Trialcounselfailedtoinquireandinvestigateinto[theAppellants]intoxication t fromdrugsandalcoholduringthehomicidethatwouldhavediminishedhis ` culpability;L    8  2.Trialcounselfailedtoinvestigate[theAppellants]extensivehistoryofdrugand $ t alcoholabuse,addictionandrecordsfromCumberlandHeightsandSteppingStones  ` foralcoholanddrugtreatmentwhichwouldhavecorroboratedhisdiminished  L  capacityontheeveningofthevictimsdeath; 8    8  3.Trialcounselfailedtointerviewwitnessesatthepartywhere[theAppellant]and   thevictimengagedinafightprecedingthevictimsdeath.Thewitnesseswouldhave   provedtestimonythatthevictimand[theAppellant]wereintoxicatedandthatthe   victiminitiallyassaulted[theAppellant];    8  4.Trialcounselfailedtoinvestigatethevictimsactsofviolenceandaggression \ toward[theAppellant]andreputationforviolence;H   8  5.Trialcounselfailedtohave[theAppellant]evaluatedforadeterminationthathis  p intoxicationfromdrugsandalcoholduringtheincidentimpactedhisreasoningand  \ preventedhimfromformingtherequisiteintentformurder;[and]H   8  6.Trialcounselfailedtoadequatelyconferwithhisjuvenileclientaboutthenature   oflesserincludedoffensestothechargeofmurderinthefirstdegree.Trialcounsel   consultedwith[theAppellant]forlessthanatotaloftwentyfour(24)hours.   TheStatefiledamotiontodismisstheAppellantspetition,arguingthatthepetitionwastimebarred  bytheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.TheAppellantrespondedthathispetitionwasnottimebarred l duetohisminoritystatuswhichtolledthelimitationsperiod.Thepostconvictioncourtdismissed X  theAppellantspetitionastimebarred,findingthat: D! 8   ` Thedefendantwasrepresentedbycompetentcounselfromthetimehewas #l! injuvenilecourtuntilhepledguiltyinAdultCriminalCourt.Therewasatransfer $X" hearinginJuvenileCourtandonceajuvenilehasbeentransferredtoAdultCriminal $D # Court,heisdeclaredanadult.%0!$   8   ` OnceMr.Stewartenteredhisplea,thestatutestartedrunningforanytypeof '#& postrelief.(#'   Thistimelyappealfollowed. |*%)  h+&*   ANALYSIS   Ӏ    TheAppellantarguesthathispostconvictionpetitionwastimelyfiledbecause disability  asaminortollstheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsforfilingapetitionforpostconvictionreliefunder t constitutionaldueprocess.TheAppellant'sconvictionbecamefinalonAugust11,1999,whenhe ` pledguiltytoseconddegreemurderandreceivedatwentyfiveyearsentence.Inorderforthe L  Appellant'spetitiontobetimely,itmusthavebeenfiledwithinone(1)yearofthedateonwhichthe 8  judgmentbecamefinal.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(a)(1997). Thestatuteoflimitations $ t shallnotbetolledforanyreason,includinganytollingorsavingprovisionotherwiseavailableat  ` laworequity.Id.;seealsoSealsv.State,23S.W.3d272,276(Tenn.2000).Accordingly,we  L  conclude,andastheAppellantconcedes,thegeneralsavingsprovisionforminors,TennesseeCode  8  Annotated281106(2000),N P#  1      ׀doesnottolltheoneyearstatuteoflimitationsforfilingapost $  convictionpetition.     However,thisdoesnotendourinquiry;wemustalsodeterminewhethertheAppellants   minorityrequirestollingthestatuteoflimitationsasamatterofconstitutionaldueprocess.Seals,   23S.W.3dat276. Indeterminingwhatproceduralprotectionsaparticularsituationdemands,three p factorsmustbeconsidered: \ 8  (1)theprivateinterestatstake;4   8  (2)theriskoferroneousdeprivationoftheinterestthroughtheproceduresusedand  \ theprobablevalue,ifany,ofadditionalorsubstitutesafeguards;andfinally,H   8  (3)thegovernment'sinterest,includingthefunctioninvolvedandthefiscaland   administrativeburdensthattheadditionalorsubstituteproceduralrequirementwould   entail.   Id.(citingMathewsv.Eldridge,424U.S.319,335,96S.Ct.893,903(1976);Phillipsv.StateBd.  ofRegents,863S.W.2d45,50(Tenn.1993)).Inthiscase,theprivateinterestatstakeisthe l Appellantsopportunitytoattackhisconvictionandsentenceongroundsthathewasdeprivedof X  constitutionalrightsduringtheconvictionprocess.Id.Thegovernment'sinterestisavoidingthe D! litigationofstaleandgroundlessclaims.Id.(citingBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d,204(Tenn.1992)). 0"  TheAppellantsinterestincollaterallyattackinghisconvictionisnotafundamentalrightthat #l! deservesheighteneddueprocessprotection.Id.However,beforetheStatemayterminateaclaim $X" forfailuretocomplywithproceduralrequirementssuchasstatutesoflimitations,dueprocess $D # requiresthatapotentiallitigantbeprovidedanopportunityforthe"presentationofclaimsata %0!$  &"% Ї̀meaningfultimeandinameaningfulmanner."Id.at278(citingBurford,854S.W.2dat207);see  alsoWorkmanv.State,41S.W.3d100,103(Tenn.2001).Thetestiswhetherthetimeperiod t allowedbylawprovidestheAppellantafairandreasonableopportunitytofilesuit.Burford,845 ` S.W.2dat208. L    TheAppellantassertsthathewasdeniedareasonableopportunitytopresenthispost $ t convictionclaimsinameaningfultimeandmannerbecauseasaminorhewasdisabledthroughout  ` thelimitationsperiod.Wedisagree.Pursuanttothejuveniletransferstatute,TennesseeCode  L  Annotated371134(a)(2001),ajuvenilemaybetransferredtoacriminalcourtofcompetent  8  jurisdictionandis tobedealtwithasanadult.Tenn.CodeAnn.371134(a).Themostbasic $  principleofstatutoryconstructionistoascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislativeintentwithout   undulyrestrictingorexpandingastatute'scoveragebeyonditsintendedscope.Owensv.State,908   S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995).Indetermininglegislativeintent,welookfirsttothestatuteitself,   andrely,whenpossible,upontheordinarymeaningofthelanguageandtermsused,refrainingfrom   anyforcedorsubtleconstructiontolimitorextendthestatute'smeaning.Statev.Smith,893S.W.2d p 908,917(Tenn.1994),reh'gdenied,(Tenn.1995),cert.denied,516U.S.829,116S.Ct.99(1995). \ TheplainlanguageofTennesseeCodeAnnotated371134(a)indicatesthatthelegislature H intendedalljuvenilestransferredtocriminalcourttobetreatedinallrespectsasadults. Wherethe 4 statutemandatesthatachildbetriedasifhewereanadult,hemaynolongerhavethebenefitof  p statutesexpresslyapplicabletochildren.Coylerv.State,577S.W.2d460,463(Tenn.1979).  \ Accordingly,theAppellant,likeothersimilarlysituatedadults,mustmakeaprimafacieshowing H ofincompetenceinordertotollthelimitationsperiod.Statev.Nix,40S.W.3d459,464(Tenn. 4 2001).SuchashowingrequiresspecificfactualallegationsthatdemonstratetheAppellants   inabilitytomanagehispersonalaffairsorunderstandhislegalrightsandliabilities.Id.The   Appellantsstatusasaminorisnotenoughtomakesuchaprimafacieshowingofincompetence.  Ѐ    Weighingthesecompetinginterests,weconcludethatdueprocessdoesnotpreclude  applicationofthestatuteoflimitationstotheAppellantspetitionforpostconvictionrelief.The l AppellantdidnotfiletheinstantpetitionuntilApril27,2001,outsidetheapplicablelimitations X  period.Therefore,theAppellant'spetitionistimebarred.S P#  2       D!   0"    CONCLUSION       Basedupontheforegoingreasons,wefindthattheAppellant'spetitionforpostconviction t reliefistimebarred.Accordingly,thejudgmentofthepostconvictioncourtsummarilydismissing ` thepetitionisaffirmed. L  #XPXX XPE #   `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE