### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE RODNEY LAMONT L OVE v . STATE OF TENNESS EE

Crim inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 98-C- 2232

No. M2009- 00036-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Augu st 27, 2009

The Appe llant appea ls the trial court' s dismis sal of his petition for post conviction re lief. The Appellant filed his petition outside the statute of limitations. According ly , the judg ment of the trial court is af

firmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crim inal Ap peals T H O M A S T. W O O D A L L , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which J E R R Y L

. S M I T H , and R O B E R T W. W E D E M E Y E R , J .J ., joined. Rodney L amont L ove, pro se . Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Be njamin A. Ba ll, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .

MEMORAN DUM OP INION The Appe llant pled guilty in these ca ses in J anuar

y of 1999. He rec eived a

n eff ective f ive y ear sentenc e. Althoug h his sentence in this case has e x pired, the A ppellant is curr ently

serving a fe dera l sentence which appa rently was e nhance d based on his convic tions in t his case. T he Appellant filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief on October

30, 2008. The trial c ourt conclude d that the petition was filed be yond the statute of limitations and summarily dismiss ed the same. The Appellant appe aled. The State filed a motion to aff irm the judg ment of the trial court pursua

nt to Court of Crimi nal Appea ls Rule 20. The Court finds this mot ion to be welltaken. The Appe llant's post-c onviction petition is clea rly barr ed by

the statute of limitations. Tenne ssee Code Annotated Section 40-30- 102(a) provides that a pe tition for post-conviction relief must be filed within one y ear of final judg ment. The Appe llant filed his petition well over nine y ear s after

the entry of his guilty

pleas. The Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t enumerates few exceptions to thi s one year time limi t. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102( b). In order to qualify ,the claim in the petition must be based upon a new r ule of c onstitut ional law re quiring retrospe ctive application, mustbe base d upon new sc ientific evide nce e stablishing ac tual innocenc e, or must asser

t relief f rom sentenc es which w ere enhanc ed bec ause of a pre vious conviction that has subseque ntly found to be illeg al. I d. None of these e x ceptions apply

in this case . The Appe llant argues on appe al that due pr ocess c oncer ns should toll the runningof the statute of limitations because othe rwise he will not be affor ded the oppor tunity to challeng e his state cour t convictions which we re use d to enhanc e his fede ral sente nce. T he Appe llant's argument is without m erit. See, e .g ., J ason Ear l Hill v. S tate, No. E2005- 00968-CCA-R3-PC, 2006 WL389667 (Tenn. Crim. App., F eb. 16, 2006), pe rm. to app. denie d, (Tenn., Sep. 5, 2006) (tolling of statute not require d when pe titioner waited to file post-c onviction petition unti l after his feder al sentenc e enha

nced ba sed on prior state convictions). For the re asons stated a

bove, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med in acc ordanc e with Rule 20.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE

2