# FILED October 10, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE JULY SESSION, 1997 THO MAS C . MANE Y, JR., ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9612- CR-00470 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) BRADLEY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. R. STEVE BEBB STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Convi ction)

ON APPEA L FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF BRADLEY COUNTY FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : THO MAS C. MA NEY, J R., JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney Generaland Reporter Register Number 216056 Route 1, Box 330 Tiptonvil le, TN 38079-9775 MARVIN E. CLEMENTS, JR. Assistant Attorney General 425 5th Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243 JERRY N. ESTES Distri ct Attor ney General RANDY G. ROGERS Assistant Distri ct Attor ney General 204 North Jackson Athens, TN 37303
OPINION FILED ________________________ REVERSED AND REMANDED DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The Defe ndan t appe als the trial c ourt’s dismiss al of his pe tition for postconvicti on relief . The single issue presented for our r eview is whet her the tr ial court erred in its determ ination that the petition wa s barred by the stat ute of limitat ion s. We conclude tha t the petition is not time-ba rred. W e therefore reverse the judgment of the tri al court and remand this case fo r furt her proceedings.
From this record, it

appears that on February 12, 1993, the Defendant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to one count of

felony poss ession of cocai ne and one count of felony possessi on of mariju ana. He received an effective sentence of eightyears. There was no appeal fr

om his convic tion or sen tences . The po stconvicti on relief

petiti on under consider ation herein , appa rently th e Def enda nt’s first petition, was filed on M ay 9, 1996. The tri al court di smissed the peti tion based on the stat ute oflimitations. It is from the order

of the trial court

dismissing the petiti on that the Defendant appeals.
At the time the Defendant’s convi ctions beca me fin al, the statu te of limitat ions appli ca ble to post -convict ion proceedi ngs was three year s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102 (repealed 1995) . It i s clear t hat the petition in the case sub judice was filed after the expirati on of the three-year statute of li mitations.
The new Pos t-Conviction Proc edure Act is a pplica ble to this petiti on and all petitions filed after May 10, 199 5. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq .1 W e note that in at least one prior case in this Court, the State conceded that the statute of limitations did not

bar consideration of a pet iti on fil ed under the same factual circumstances as the one in the case sub judice
. See Betsy Ja ne Pen dergras t v. State , C.C .A. No. 01 C01-96 07-CC00289, Rutherford Co unty (Tenn. Crim. App., Nash ville, May 16, 1997). -3- (Supp. 1996). This Act repealed the three-year stat ute of li mitations and enacted in its pl ace a one-year statute of l imitat io ns. On th e effective d ate of this A ct, same being May 10, 1995, the repealed three-year statute of limitations had not yet run on th e petitione r’s right to file a pe tition fo r post-c onvic tion rel ief. The 1995 Act pro vides, in pertinent part, t hat “notwi thstandingany other prov ision of this act to t he contrary , anyperson having a ground for rel ief recogni zed under this act shallhave at least one ( 1) year fr om th e effec tive date of this a ct to file a petiti on or a motion to reopen a peti tion under th is act.” 199 5 Ten n. Pub. A cts ch. 207, § 3.
Because it is clear

that the t hree-year st atute of l imitati ons had not run on this Defendant at t he time the l egislat ure repeal ed tha t statute and re place d it with a one-yea r stat ute, webelieve that the provisio n quo ted ab ove pr ovided this Defendant one year from the effective date of the Act, or until May 10, 1996, to file his petiti on for post- convicti on relief . Therefore, the petit ion herein was tim ely filed on May 9, 19 96, and sho uld have been considered by the trialcourt on the merits. 1
The judgmen t of the trial court dismissing t his peti tion is reversed, and this case is remanded to the trial court for fur ther proceedings.-4- _________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE
CONCUR:

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE

___________________________________ JOHN K. BYERS, SENIORJUDGE