WPC L@d1#kTJeT{Pq(p zwR1D%oy xD l,kڽ2ڽa,?j^Jo0 *vw+%y*DMEjM Þ..5)L=m4\(NR&[ .I& UxGA m\Bԉ&W_ cbT-ώ {59GڼձmlCGm'! $y'W8;D(-XK_V9߽zP xp*˃Xthl*M›!: X[ƥ }aAgPnYxVYqo':ӡ2PSqƨ0qbUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m 0D UN b (   'z N#Elnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnbvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 0~~~~ Bii 0 D5* D-_ 0K AS* 0 0D A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ӽs/ y.@T3|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.wptU(#$  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  M  _Theironypresentedinthepresentcase,however,isthattheremaybenostatesentencingremedy.The  petitionerhasalreadycompletedhiseighteenyearstatesentence,withtheresultbeingthatapparentlyhewillberequired q toserveapproximatelysixyearsbeyondthetrialcourt'ssentencingorder.Ifso,asobservedinSantobello,"[t]hisrecord 2 presentsanotherexampleofanunfortunatelapseinorderlyprosecutorialprocedures....Theheavyworkloadmay C wellexplaintheseepisodes,butitdoesnotexcusethem."Santobello,404U.S.at260;92S.Ct.at498.\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0 - -(|G2?$ !.8dd8         0  M d(|3%$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3%$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _    8.XXdd8@hh/INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#/ #Ԉ # X.X #XX.#  ANDREWILSONv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX.X  /  @&& CriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  ) @%No.P25387   @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈    @  No.W200102442CCAR3PCFiledApril17,_2002_Ԉ z  AV) ` dE<M` A N   #XX.C#X.X@* #XX.l#X.XԈ#XX.#X.XDavidG.Hayes,J.,dissenting. h  X XXX.  Iamunabletojoinwiththemajorityinaffirmingdismissalofthepetitionupongroundsthat : itwastimebarred. #   ThiscaseisbutoneofmanycasesfromShelbyCountyinwhichadefendanthasraised  beforethiscourtachallengetothevoluntarinessofhisguiltypleabaseduponapleaagreement  whichprovidedthatthedefendantsstatesentenceswouldbeservedconcurrentlytothedefendants w outstandingorpendingfederalsentence.Althoughweacknowledgethatthepreviouscaseswere ` timelyfiled,wenonethelessnotethatreliefwasgrantedinallcaseswheretheStatewasfoundto I havebreacheditspleaagreement.Seee.g.,_Lucious_ԀAllenv.State,No.W200002320CCA_OT_ԄPC 2 (Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,Nov.2,2001);JosephT.Faulknerv.State,No.W199900223CCA k R3PC(Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,Oct.17,2000);Statev.BruceC._Reliford_,No.W199900826 T CCAR3CD(Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,Oct.2,2000);DerrickE.Meansv.State,No.02C01 = 9707CR00248(Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,Aug.13,1998);Joe_Seigle_Ԁv.OscarMason,No. & 03C019610CR00364(Tenn._Crim_.App.atKnoxville,Oct.1,1997).Althoughwearenot    presentedwithanyfactualfindingsintheinstantcase,asthepostconvictioncourtsummarily !! dismissedthepetition,thejudgmentofconvictionformsandpleaagreementdocumentsreflectthat "" petitionersstateconvictionsweretobeserved concurrentlywith9403474,76,77,78,79,81& z## 9404332andLRCR926(2)oftheFederalDistrictCourtofEasternArkansas.Theobvious c$$ dilemmapresentedbythispleaagreementisthattheStateofTennesseelacksanyauthorityto L% % controlafederalsentence.Thedeterminationbyfederalauthoritiesastothemannerinwhicha 5&!& federalsentenceistobeservedinfederalcustodyinconjunctionwithastatesentenceisafederal 'n"' matter whichcannotbeoverriddenbyastatecourtprovisionforconcurrentsentencingona (W#( subsequentlyobtainedstateconviction.DerrickE.Meansv.State,No.02C019707CR00248 (@$) (Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,Aug.13,1998)(citationsomitted).OneUnitedStatesCourtof ))%* AppealsJudgehassummarizedtheproblemfromthefederalperspectiveasfollows: *&+ 8  Statesentencingjudgesanddefenseattorneysinstateproceedingsshouldbeputon ,'- notice.Federalprisonofficialsareundernoobligationto,andmaywellrefuseto, }-(. _followarecommendationofstatesentencingjudgesthataprisonerbetransported  toafederalfacility.Moreover,concurrentsentencesimposedbystatejudgesare  nothingmorethanrecommendationstofederalofficials.Thoseofficialsremainfree  toturnthoseconcurrentsentencesintoconsecutivesentencesbyrefusingtoaccept k thestateprisoneruntilcompletionofthestatesentenceandrefusingtocreditthe T timetheprisonerspentinstatecustody.=    DelGuzziv.UnitedStates,980F.2d1269,127273(9thCir.1992)(Norris,J.,concurring).In  _ severaloftheabovecases,asinthepresentcase,thedefendantwasinfederalcustodywhenthestate  H negotiatedguiltypleawasentered.Inallofthesecases,thefederalcorrectionalfacilityrefusedto  1  acceptreturnofthedefendantuntilthestatesentenceshadbeenserved;theeffectofwhichresulted    inthedefendantsstatenegotiatedconcurrentsentencesbeingtransformedintoconsecutive   sentences.     This,inturn,leadstotheunderlyingissuepresentedinthepetition,i.e.,thevoluntariness n  oftheguiltypleawithinthecontextofanegotiatedpleaagreement.Acknowledgingtheattachment W  ofdueprocessrightswithintheguiltypleaproceeding,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthas @ observed: )y 8  [Where]aplearestsinanysignificantdegreeonapromiseoragreementofthe K prosecutor,sothatitcanbesaidtobepartoftheinducementorconsideration,such 4 promisemustbefulfilled...Thatthebreachofagreementwasinadvertentdoesnot  lessenitsimpact.   Santobellov.NewYork,404U.S.257,264,92S.Ct.495,499(1971).AsJusticeDouglasnotesin  hisconcurringopinion,itis clearthataprosecutorspromisemaydepriveaguiltypleaofthe q characterofavoluntaryact.Santobellov.NewYork,404U.S.at267,92S.Ct.at501(citations Z omitted).Moreover, wherethepleabargainisnotkeptbytheprosecutor,thesentencemustbe C vacatedandthestatecourtwilldecideinlightofthecircumstancesofeachcasewhetherdueprocess ,| requires(a)thattherebeaspecificperformanceofthepleabargainor(b)thatthedefendantbegiven e theoptiontogototrialontheoriginalcharges.Id.  #  1       N   InWilliamsv.State,44S.W.3d464,46772(Tenn.2001),oursupremecourtobservedthat !   dueprocessconsiderationsmaytollthestatuteoflimitationsforfilinganactionforpostconviction " ! relief.Inthiscase,thepetitionerfirstlearnedthathispleaagreementwasbreachedonlyafterthe #" oneyearstatuteoflimitationshadexpired.Thus,thepetitionerwasbarredfromseekingpost $# convictionrelief.Additionally,hewasbarredfromseekingstatehabeascorpusreliefbecauseof t% $ hisconfinementinfederalprison.TennesseeCodeAnnotated2921102.Asfoundbythepost ]&!% convictioncourt,thepetitioner,uponlearningofthebreach, fullyexhaustedhisgrievancerights,  andonAugust23,2000,theNationalInmateAppealsBoard,inWashingtonD.C.,deniedthe  DefendantrequestforreliefandrefusedtocredithisFederalsentencewithanyofthetimeheserved  intheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.Thepetitionforpostconvictionreliefwasfiledon k July19,2001. T   Inviewofthesefacts,Ifindavalidquestionisraisedastowhetherthepetitionerwas & v preventedfromtimelyfilinghispetitionforpostconvictionreliefwithinthestatutoryoneyear  _ filingperiod.Assuch,Iwouldremandtothetrialcourtforanevidentiarytodetermine:(1)whether  H dueprocesstolledthestatuteoflimitationssoastogivethepetitionerareasonableopportunityafter  1  theexpirationofthelimitationsperiodtopresenthisclaiminameaningfultimeandmanner;and    (2)ifso,whetherthepetitionersfilingofthepostconvictionpetitiononJuly19,2001,waswithin   thereasonableopportunityaffordedbythedueprocessholding.SeeWilliamsv.State,44S.W.3d   at471.   #X.X X Xe##XX.#X.X   `     h     ____________________________________ b    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE