# FIL ED M arch 24 , 200 8 Cec il Crow son , Jr . A ppell ate Court Clerk IN T HE C OU RTOF C RI MI NA L A PPEA LS OF T EN NE SSEE

A T JACKSON OC TO BE R 1996 S ESSI ON

WA LLACE BUTLER, ) ) C. C. A . N O. 02C 01- 9510- CC -0 0297 Appel lan t, ) ) FA

YETTE COUN TY V S
. ) ) HON. JON KERRY BLACKWOOD, RI CK Y B ELL , WA RD EN , ) JUD GE ) Appel lee
. ) (H abeas C or pus/ Post -C onv icti on)
FO R THE A PPELLA NT: FO R THE A PPELLE E: GA RY A NT RI CA N CH A RL ES W. B UR SON Publ icD efender Atto rn ey Gene ra l & R epor

ter SH A NA M cCOY -J OH NS ON MA RY A NN E QU EEN Ass t. Publ icD efender Leg al Ass is tant 118 Ea st Ma rk et S t. -a ndSomer v il le, TN 38068- 0700 ELLEN H. POLLACK Ass t. Atto rn ey

Gene ra l 4 5 0 Ja m e s Ro b e rt s o n P kwy. Nas hv il le, TN 37243- 0493 ELIZA BETH T. RICE Di str ict Attor ney

Gene ra l 302 M ar ketSt. Somer v il le, TN 38068- 1600

OPIN ION F ILED :______

_________

_____ A FF IR ME D J OH N H. PE A

Y, Ju d ge2 O P I N I O N The peti ti oner w as conv icted by a jur y of fiv e count s of ar med ro bber y , four of w hic h were aff ir med and one of w hic h w as rev ersed and di smi ss ed by thi s C our

t i n an op i ni on fi l ed o n M arc h 6, 1 98 5. A pp l i c at i on for p ermi s s i on t o ap pe al t o th e Su prem e Court w as de nied on Jun e 10 , 198 5. T he petition er subse quently f iled a pe tition for w rit of habeas corpus on M ay 24, 1995, w hic h the co urt bel ow treated as one for post conviction relief

and dism issed w ithou t a he aring on the basis tha t it was time -barred. He c o n t e n d s t h a tt h is su m m a ry d is m is s a l wa s im p ro p e r. Aft e r r e vie win g t h e re c o rd , we aff ir m the lower

co urt’ s j udg ment. The peti ti on i n thi s c ase w as filed i n Fay ette Co unty , Tennessee, the county in w hich th e pe titione r was originally convi c t e d
. His petition shows tha t he is presen tly inc arcerated in Dav ids on C ounty , Tennes see. The on ly al leg ati on c ontai ned i n the peti ti on i s t hat t he tr ial co urt er re d i n all ow ing cert ain w it ness es to testi fy on beha lf of the Sta te attrial. A petition for hab eas co rpus m ust be f iled in the coun ty w hich is the m ost conv eni ent i n point of dis tanc e to the a ppl ic ant u nle ss a s uff ic ien t reason be g iv en i n the peti ti on for

not appl y ing to suc h court. T .C .A. § 29-21- 105 (1980)
. The peti ti on was not f iled in Davi dson Count y nor w as the re a ny allegation as to w hy it was no t f iled in said county . Al so, reli ef in h abeas co rp us proceed ing s is a vail a b le onl y i f the j udg ment attac ked is v oid upon it s face or the re co rd , or

i f the defendant’ s s entenc e of imp risonm enthas expired. Archer v . Stat e, 85 1 S.W .2d 157 , 164 (T enn . 199 3). In this cas e, t he pet it ion er

has fail ed to al leg e any matte r that woul d make hi s ju d g ment void
. W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial j udg e proper ly co nsi dered th e pet it io n as one for pos tconviction relief

rather tha n ha bea s corpus. T .C.A. § 4 0-30 -205 (c) (199 6 Sup p).3 Fi ndi ng thatthe tr ial judg e proper ly co nsi dered th e pet it ion er ’s peti ti on as one for post -c onv icti on rel ief, we now l ook to de ter mine if the tr ial j udg e proper ly appl ied the s tatut e of li mita ti ons. The pe ti ti oner ’s co nv icti on bec ame final on J une 10, 1985, the date per m iss io n t o appeal was deni ed by our Supreme C our

t. Shor tl y thereafter, our leg is lat ure enacted a three y ear st atute of li mita ti ons that w as appl ic abl e to al l peti ti ons for post-co nviction relief f iled on or af

ter July 1, 19 86. T.C.A. § 4 0-30 -102 (1986 Supp .). The peti ti oner ’s r ig ht to file for post -c onv icti on re li ef woul d the re fore hav e been bar re d on Jul y 1, 1989. See Abst on v . St ate, 749 S.W .2d 4 87, 4 88 ( Tenn. C ri m. App. 1988)
. The ins tant peti ti on was filed on M ay 24, 1995.
W e ac know led g e tha t this petiti on fall s w it hin the pur v iew of the new Pos tConviction Proced ure Act, T .C.A. § 40-3 0-20 1 et seq. (19 96 Su pp), which applies to all post - c o n v i ct i o n p e t i t i o n s fi l e d a ft e r M a y 1 0 , 1 9 9 5
. S e e 1 9 9 5 Te n n . P u b
. A ct 2 0 7 , § 3. T his new Act prov ides, in pertin ent part, tha t "[n ]otwithstan ding any oth er provi sion of this part to the con trary , any person ha v ing g roun d for re lief reco gniz ed und er this part sha ll hav e at lea st one ( 1) y ear from M ay

10, 199 5 , to f il e a p eti ti on or a mot ion to re open a peti ti on unde r thi s par

t." Compi ler's Not es to T.C. A. § 40- 30- 201 ( 1996 S upp)referr ing to A cts 1995, ch. 207, § 3. And w e real iz e that another panel of this C our

t hashel d, w it h one member

di ss enti ng , t hat t he new Pos t- Con v icti o n Proc edure Act prov ide s "a oney ear w ind ow " i n w hic h ev er

y defendant mayfil e a p eti ti on. Ar nol d C arter v . St ate, C. C. A. No. 03C 01- 9509- CC -0 0270, Mo n ro e County ( Tenn. C ri m. App. fil ed J uly 11, 1996, at Knoxv ille)
. T hat c ase hol ds that the o ne- y ear w ind ow i s a v ail abl e ev en i f the pet it ion woul d hav e been bar re d by the three y ear

st atute prov ide d under the prev iou s a ct.
Howev er , we adoptthe v iew se t fort h in Judg e W ell es' diss ent, conc lud ing that4 thi s l ang uag e is only

appli cabl e to thos e w ho w ere notbar re d by the sta tute of li mita ti ons at t he ti me thi s s tatut e went i nto effect
. Thus, if les s than three y ears h ad al re ady pas sed at the b il l' s e nact ment, a defendant ass uming that he had th re e y ears in w hich to f ile a p etition for p ost-con v iction relief would notbe foreclose d f rom bringi ng a suit; instea d, he would still hav e the one y ear

from t he effectiv e dat e of the sta tute. Lik e J udg e W e lle s, we d o notbel iev e tha t t he new Act prov ide s t o tho se defendants prev iou sl y

bar re d a n ew one year per iod i n w hic h to peti ti on for post -c onv icti on reli ef. At most, i t prov ide s t hose bar re d an oppor tuni ty to re o p e n a p rio r peti ti on w it hin one y ear of the new

Act' s e ffect iv e dat e. T.C. A. § 40- 30- 217 ( 1996 Supp)
. The al leg ati ons under re v iew do n ot meetthe cr it er ia of thisse cti on.
The in sta nt pe ti ti on i s b ar re d by the three y ear

st atute of li mita tio ns appl ic abl e under

the pr ior Act. Therefore, the a cti on of the tr ial cou rti n di smi ss ing the p e t it io n wa s a p p ro p ri a t e a n d we a c c o rd in gl y a f f ir m t h e ju d gm e n tb e lo w.

_________

_________

_________

___ JO HN H. PE AY, Ju d ge CONCUR:

_________

_________

_________

___ PA UL G. SUM ME RS , J u d ge

_________

_________

_________

___ DAVI D G. HAYE S, Ju d ge