WPCk$ # Vw@a % 0 {U:" 4\ p 0 0D> 0J  UF 0T 0^n 0h 0r4 0| 0" 0 1u8 B 0dU*.U6X D3B)DC 0@- AMm^[swv~uv AO"# 0D# D/$ BN$HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLd tuEvw{xyze{D|}Ӏ(Sә$X"XX    ,6 AZ"Arial Regularڃ"3|x(o(3$$ ә!X XX      `   0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  < 9Z .Courier New Regular2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) dP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Arial<  9p`(Courier New 'dxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("$    -,C << G T !  #d#(((X   X      (   YYY FILED(X September8,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.(AppellateCourtClerk  Q !#d#(((X   X       $       )ArnoldCarterv.State,No.23(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,May9,1973).  !#d#(((X   X       $       )ArnoldCarterv.State,No.88(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,March1,1985),perm.toappealdeniedconcurringinresultsonly(Tenn.1985);ArnoldCarterv.State,600S.W.2d750(Tenn.Crim.App.1980). m !#d#(((X   X       $       )Inhisdissent,JudgeWellesnotedthatinpassingthenewAct,thelegislatureintendedtolimitthenumberofpetitionsapetitionercouldfileandtoreducethetimeinwhichheorshecouldfilethem.JudgeWellesopinedthatthelegislaturedidnotintendtoreviveacauseofactioninthecaseofapetitionerforwhomthestatuteoflimitationshadexpired.  !#d#(((X   X       $       )Underexceptional,statutorilylimitedcircumstances,thestatuteoflimitationscanbewaived,orapetitionermaymovetoreopenapreviouslyconcludedpetition.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b)&4030217(a)(Supp.1996). } !#d#(((X   X       $       )Accordingtostandardpractice,thisprovisionwasnotpublishedwiththerestofthestatuteintheTennesseeCodeAnnotated.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . (((X   X      ݛ    \RA'\  \RA'\7eXXdd7` XX)ԜR./,A1-j|` - `@Rߛ @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLEARNOLDCARTER   )FORPUBLICATIOǸ     )      )FILED:SEPTEMBER8,1997 Appellee    )      )MONROECOUNTYv.      )      )HON.R.STEVENBEBB,      ) JUDGESTATEOFTENNESSEE    )̀  )NO.03S019612CR00117̀ Appellant  )ForAppellee:     ForAppellant:KENNETHF.IRVINE,JR.   JOHNKNOXWALKUPKnoxville,TN     AttorneyGeneralandReporter      MICHAELE.MOORE      SolicitorGeneral            KATHYMORANTE      DeputyAttorneyGeneral      Nashville,TN            JERRYN.ESTES      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      STEPHENBAXTERWARD      AssistantDistrictAttorney      General       @ OPINIONREVERSEDANDDISMISSED       BIRCH,J. WegrantedtheState'sapplicationinthiscasetodeterminewhetherthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995( thenewAct),providestopetitionersforwhomthestatuteoflimitationshadexpiredundertheoldActadditionaltimeinwhichtofilepetitionsforpostconvictionrelief.WeconcludethatalthoughthelanguageofthenewActisambiguous,thelegislativeintentisclear:petitionersforwhomthestatuteoflimitationsexpiredpriortotheeffectivedateofthenewAct,i.e.,May10,1995,donothaveanadditionalyearinwhichtofilepetitionsforpostconvictionrelief.Thus,thepetitionfiledbyArnoldCarterisbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.ThejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed,andthepetitionisdismissed.@ I PetitionerArnoldCarterwasconvictedoffirstdegreemurderin1972andsentencedtodeath.TheGovernorsubsequentlycommutedthedeathsentencetoaninetynineyearterminthestatepenitentiary.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedtheconvictionandsentenceinanunpublisheddecision,andthisCourtdeclinedCartersapplicationforpermissiontoappeal. 0   ׀Thereafter,Carterfiledthreepostconvictionpetitions,andreliefwasdeniedineachofthefirsttwopetitions. 1   ׀ InthislatestpetitionfiledonJuly24,1995,CarterallegesBradyviolationsandineffectiveassistanceoftrialcounsel.Thetrialcourtfoundthepetitionbarredbythestatuteoflimitationsanddismissedit.AmajorityoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsinterpretedtheenablingprovisionofthenewActtoprovidethepetitionerwithanewoneyearperiodinwhichtofileaclaimforpostconvictionreliefandthus,reversedthetrialcourt. 2   ׀@ II Priorto1967,habeascorpuswasthesoleprocedureavailabletocollaterallychallengeaconviction,andthisremedywascriticizedasbeingtoolimitedinnatureandscope.Thus,toprovideabroaderavenueforcollateralchallengetocriminalconvictionsonthebasisofconstitutionalerror,thelegislatureenactedthePostConvictionProcedureActof1967.Asoriginallyadopted,thestatutecontainednostatuteoflimitations.EffectiveJuly1,1986,however,thelegislatureadoptedathreeyearstatuteoflimitationsthatwastoapplyprospectively.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(repealed1995).Thus,anypetitionerwhosejudgmentbecamefinalonorbeforeJuly1,1986,haduntilJuly1,1989,tofileapetitionforpostconvictionrelief.Statev.Masucci,754S.W.2d90(Tenn.Crim.App.1988). OnMay10,1995,thelegislature,cognizantofthedegreetowhichthedelugeofpostconvictioncasesstrainedthecourts,enactedthePostConvictionProcedureActof1995.ThenewActincludedashorterstatuteoflimitationsperiodandlimitedthenumberofpetitionsthatcouldbefiledinanyparticularcase.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b)(1)&4030202(c)(Supp.1996). 3    TheenablingprovisionoftheActinquestionreadsasfollows:8 8 Thisactshalltakeeffectuponbecomingalaw,thepublicwelfarerequiringitandshallgovernallpetitionsforpostconvictionrelieffiledafterthisdate,andanymotionswhichmaybefiledafterthisdatetoreopenpetitionsforpostconvictionreliefwhichwereconcludedpriortotheeffectivedateofthisact.Notwithstandinganyotherprovisionofthisacttothecontrary,anypersonhavingagroundforreliefrecognizedunderthisactshallhaveatleastone(1)yearfromtheeffectivedateofthisacttofileapetitionoramotiontoreopenunderthisact.1995Tenn.Pub.Act207,3(emphasisadded). 4   ׀"[T]hemostbasicprincipleofstatutoryconstructionistoascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislativeintentwithoutundulyrestrictingorexpandingastatute'scoveragebeyonditsintendedscope."Worleyv.Weigels,Inc.,919S.W.2d589,593(Tenn.1996)(quotingOwensv.State,908S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995));Statev.Sliger,846S.W.2d262,263(Tenn.1993).Legislativeintentandpurposeistobeascertainedprimarilyfromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguageused,withoutaforcedorsubtleconstructionthatwouldlimitorextendthemeaningofthelanguage.Tugglev.AllrightParkingSys.,Inc.,922S.W.2d105,107(Tenn.1996);NationalGasDistrib.,Inc.v.State,804S.W.2d66(Tenn.1991).Whenthelanguageisambiguousanddoesnotyieldaclearinterpretation,thecourtmayconsultthelegislativehistoryforadditionalinterpretiveguidance.Storeyv.BradfordFurnitureCo.,910S.W.2d857,859(Tenn.1995);seealsoCarrv.Ford,833S.W.2d68,6970(Tenn.1992). Wefindthelanguageoftheenablingprovisionambiguous.Themeaningofthephrase anypersonhavingagroundforreliefrecognizedunderthisactisuncertain.Theinterpretationprofferedbythepetitioneristhatthephrasemeansanypersonallegingaconstitutionaldefectintheconvictionorsentence,regardlessofwhethertheclaimwouldhavebeenbarredunderthepreviousstatuteoflimitations.AstheStatepointsout,however,thephraseisjustassusceptibleofbeinginterpretedtomeananypersonhavingacognizablegroundforreliefthatisnotbarredbythepreviousstatuteoflimitations.Themerefactthatthisphraseisreasonablyinterpretedeitherwaymakesitambiguous. Wherethelanguageofalegislativeprovisionisunclear,theCourtshouldlookbehindthefaceofthestatutetodeterminethelegislature'sintent.First,wenotethatthechangestothepostconvictionstatutes,ineveryinstance,limitedthetimeandopportunitytofilepetitionsforrelief.AccordingtoRepresentativeJereHargrove,thesponsoroftheproposedbill,thelegislationwaswrittentoaddressconstituents'concernsabouttheinordinateamountoftimeallowedinpostconvictionproceedings.Heexplicitlystatedthatthepurposeofthebillwastoputtimeconstraintsonthe interminabledurationofcriminalappeals.TennesseeGeneralAssembly,HouseTapeNo.59,99thG.A.,1stSess.(April19,1995)(statementofRepresentativeHargrove). RepresentativeHargrovealsoexpressedconcernduringdiscussionsbeforetheJudiciaryCommitteethattherightsofpetitionersnotbeextinguishedbythechangeinthestatuteoflimitations.TennesseeGeneralAssembly,HouseJudiciaryCommitteeTapeNo.3,99thG.A.,1stSess.(April19,1995).Forinstance,petitionerswhoseconvictionsbecamefinalbeforetheeffectivedateoftheAct,wouldhaveotherwisehadthreeyearsinwhichtofileapostconvictionpetitionundertheoldstatute.AsofMay10,1995,therewasapotentialclassofpetitionersforwhomtheoneyearlimitationsperiodunderthenewlawhadexpiredbutthethreeyearlimitationsperiodundertheoldlawhadnot.Thelanguageoftheenablingprovisionisintendedtoprotecttherightsofthisclassofpetitioners;itisnotintendedtoreviveclaimsthatwerebarredbythepreviousstatuteoflimitations. Weagreewiththeviewthatthestatutewasintendedtorestrictthetimeandopportunitytoseekpostconvictionrelief.Clearly,thispurposeisnotservedbyastatutoryconstructionthatallowsadditionaltimeandopportunityforpetitionerswhoseclaimsarealreadybarredbythepriorstatuteoflimitations. Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed,andCarter'spetitionisdismissed.CostsoftheappealaretaxedtoCarterforwhichexecutionmayissue,ifnecessary.     ____________________________________     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JusticeCONCUR:Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Reid,Holder,JJ.