WPC  4`cZZ@Hf!'YiZXێ`WkƱf.X?1<lZ~]%"K'B\ݑ#'zuK.59GͰu?-na"j4S۵+aYI! &KwjQ1Xb3Q:Diw/2v&j9B|C, u8 o2OHMUv%2h sՑ#C{ @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈    @ No.% # %#M200302273CCAR3PCFiledOctober13,_2004_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<x` A y   ThePetitioner,DonzelA.Watson,appealsthetrialcourt'sdismissalofhispetitionforpost Z  convictionrelief.TheStatehasfiledamotionrequestingthatthisCourtaffirmthetrialcourt's C denialofreliefpursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.ThePetitionerfiled ,| hispetitionoutsidethestatuteoflimitations.Accordingly,theState'smotionisgranted,andthe e judgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. N  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtAffirmedPursuanttoRule20,Rulesof   theCourtofCriminalAppeals      RobertW._Wedemeyer_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDAVIDH.WELLES,J.,  andJERRYL.SMITH,J.,joined. v LonnieE.Maze,III,fortheappellant. H PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;JohnH.Bledsoe,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,for j theappellee,StateofTennessee.  S C @! MEMORANDUMOPINION  !%!   #X%DXXX;#XXXX%D@* #X%DXXX #ԈXXXX%D  Thismatterisbeforethecourtuponmotionoftheappellee,theStateofTennessee,toaffirm ## thejudgmentinthiscasepursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.The $$ petitionerisappealingthetrialcourt'sdismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,following z% % therevocationofhisprobation. c&!&   OnMarch24,2000,thepetitionerpledguiltytoaggravatedburglaryandvandalism.On 5(#( September20,2002,thetrialcourtrevokedpetitionersprobation.Petitionerfiledapetitionfor )n$) postconvictionreliefonMarch10,2003,attemptingtochallengehisconvictionsbyguiltypleaon *W%* March20,2000.Thetrialcourtinitiallydeterminedthatpetitionerspetitionwastimelyfiled *@&+ becausethepetitionerssentencewasnotplacedineffectuntilSeptember20,2002.Thetrialcourt +)', thenappointedcounsel.TheStatefiledamotiontodismiss,clarifyingthatthepetitionerpledguilty ,(- onMarch24,2000,andthetrialcourtrevokedthepetitionersprobationonSeptember20,2000. -(. _Thetrialcourtultimatelydeterminedthatthepetitionwasuntimely,asitwasfiledmorethanone  yearafterthepetitionersguiltypleaonMarch24,2000.Thecourtfurtherfoundthattheprobation  revocationdidnottollthetimeforfilingapostconvictionpetition.  #X%DXXX #XXXX%D  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4030102(a)providesthatapetitionforpostconviction T reliefmustbefiledwithinoneyearfromfinaljudgment.Theappellantfiledhispetitionbeyondthe =  timeallowedbythestatute,andnoneoftheenumeratedexceptionstothistimelimitapplyinthis & v case.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102(b).#X%DXXX#XXXX%DUnderthePost-ConvictionProcedureAct,% ' exceptions  _ tothestatuteoflimitationsareexplicitlysetforth,i.e.,(1)claimsbaseduponanewruleof  H constitutionallawapplicabletoapetitioner'scase,(2)claimsbaseduponnewscientificevidence  1  showinginnocence,and(3)claimsbaseduponsentencesthatwereenhancedbecauseofaprevious    convictionandthepreviousconvictionwassubsequentlyfoundtobeillegal.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.   #X%DXXXv#XXXX%D#X%DXXX#XXXX%D4030102(b)(1)(3)(2003Repl.).Petitionerhasfailedtoassertoneoftheseexceptionsfortolling   thestatute.Hecitesnonewconstitutionalrule,referstononewscientificevidence,andmakesno   claimthatanearlierconvictionhasbeenoverturned.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.#X%DXXX>#XXXX%D#X%DXXX#XXXX%D4030106(g)(2003 n  Repl.).Moreover,thepetitionersprobationrevocationdidnotgiverisetoaclaimforpost W  convictionrelieforarerunningoftheoneyearstatuteoflimitations.SeeYoungv.State,101 @ S.W.3d430(Tenn.Crim.App.2002)explainingthatanorderrevokingsuspensionofsentenceand )y probationdoesnotimposeanewsentencesubjecttocollateralattackundertheTennesseePost b ConvictionProcedureAct.AsthecourtcontemplatedinYoung,therevocationofprobationmay K occurlongaftertheoneyearstatuteoflimitationshasexpiredforattackoftheconvictionand 4 originalsentence,id.at432,whichispreciselywhatoccurredinthiscase.    Petitionerarguesthatthestatuteoflimitationsshouldbetolledbydueprocessconsiderations  pursuanttoStatev.Williams,44S.W.3d464(Tenn.2001).PetitionercitestoWilliamsandstates  that [w]herecircumstancesbeyondthepetitionerscontrolprecludehimfromactivelyraisinghis q postconvictionclaims,thestatuteoflimitationsshouldbetolled.Specifically,petitionercontends Z thathistrialcounselmisrepresentedthestrengthoftheStateswitnessesinordertogethimtoplead C guilty,failedtoinvestigateanydefenseshemighthave,andfailedtoinformhimoflesserincluded ,| offenseshecouldhavereceived.Petitionerarguesthathe didnotrealizetrialcounsels e misrepresentationsuntilafterhisprobationwasrevokedandhewassenttotheTennessee N DepartmentofCorrection.Petitionerurgesthatasaresult,hisdueprocessrightswereviolatedand  7 thestatuteoflimitationsshouldbetolled.Notwithstandingpetitionersattempttobringhiscase !   undertheumbrellaofdueprocesstollingcontemplatedbyWilliams,thefactsofthiscasesimply " ! donotwarranttolling.ThemisrepresentationsbycounselinWilliamsmadeitimpossibleforthat #" petitionertofilehispostconvictionpetitionbecausepetitionerbelievedhisdirectappealwas $# ongoing.Id.at47071.Inthiscase,petitionergivesnoexplanationastowhyhecouldnothave t% $ filedhispetition,butrathersimplystatesthathedidnotlearnofmisrepresentationsmadepriorto ]&!% hisguiltypleauntilafterhisprobationwasrevoked.Thepetitionerfailstoassertanycircumstances F'"& thatwerebeyondhiscontrolthatprecludedhimfromactivelyraisinghispostconvictionclaims. /(#' Accordingly,tollingdoesnotapply,andthejudgmentofthetrialcourtdismissingthepost )h$( convictionpetitionshouldbeaffirmed. *Q%) #X%DXXX #XXXX%D  Thestate'smotiontoaffirmisherebygranted.Thejudgmentisaffirmedinaccordancewith +#'+ Rule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Becausetheappellantisindigent,costsaretaxed , (, totheState. -(- Ї   `     h        `     h     ____________________________________ T    `     h     ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER,JUDGE =     `     h     #X%DXXX%#