# FILED
July 18, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COU RT OF CR IMINA L A PPEA LS OF TENN ESSEE AT JAC KSON JULY 1997 SES SION

VICTOR REY NOLDS, ) ) NO. 02C01-9607- CR-00244 Appellant, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY VS. ) ) Hon. W. Fred Axley , Judge STA TE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) (Post-Conv iction) Appellee. )

FOR THE APPELLA NT : FOR THE A PPELLEE : VICTOR REY NOLDS, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP Cold Creek Correction al Facili ty Attorney Gen eral and Repor ter P.O. Box 1000 Henning, TN 3 8041-1000 GEORGIA BLYTHE FELNER Assistant Att orney Gener al 450 James Roberts on Parkway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 WILLIAM L. GIBBONS Distric t Attorney General ALA NDA HORN E Assistant

District Attorney G eneral Criminal Jus tice Comp lex, Suite 30 1 201 Poplar Av enue Memphis, TN 38103

OPINI ON FI LED:

AF FIRMED -

RULE 20 OR DER

JOE G. RI LEY, JUDGE2 ORDER

The petitioner, Victor Rey nolds, a ppeals the order of the C riminal Cour t of Shelby County dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. T he tria l cour t dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing on the basis that the petition
was barred by the s tatute of limitati ons. Additional ly, the tr ial court found t hat previous petitions for po st-convi ction reli ef had been f iled an d dismissed, an d petitioner

presented no new issues “which would be pr operly addr

essed” in a pos tconvicti on petition. On appeal, petition er presents t he following issue for our review: “The Criminal C ourt v iolated petitioner’s due process rights in dismissing the petition for post-conv iction relief without an evidentiary hearing based on the statut e of limitations where the pet itioner has never had t he op port unit y to s how that pr ior convi ctions used to determ i ne his habitual c riminal stat us are voi d because he w as not aware of his rig ht against s elf-incrimi nation when he pled guil ty to the charges.” We af firm the judgment of the trial cour t. Petitioner’s claim is bas ed on the a lleged inv alidity of two (2) 1 976 guilty pleas which w ere subsequent ly used as grounds for

an habitual cr iminal conv iction. H e argues that the guilty pleas are v

oid, and as a r esult, the habit ual crimina l conviction based on the prior guilty pleas is void as well. This issue has been previousl y determined on appeal. See Victor Rey nolds
v. State , C.C.A. No . 84 (Tenn. Cri m. App. filed Sep t ember 27, 1989, at Ja ckson). Petitioner

may not again seek relief on this gro und. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30- 206(h) (Supp. 1996). Furthermore, post-conv iction rel ief is barred by th e stat ute of limitations. Petitioner

co mplains o f guilty pleas whi ch were ent ered in 1976. The s tatute of limitations for post-conv iction rel ief ran on July 1, 1989. Abston v. St ate , 749 S.W.2d 487 (Tenn. Cri m. App. 1988). There are no alleg ations in the pe ti tion o r otherwise which w

ould appropria tely toll the statute. See Burford v. St ate , 845 S.W .2d 204 (Tenn. 199 2); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4 0-30-202(b) (Supp. 1996). Petitioner

claims that t he trial cour t err ed in not conducting an evidentiary hearing on the petition. If it appears on t he face of the petition, any exhi bits or pri or3

procee dings in the case that the petition w as not filed w ithin the statute of limit ations
or that a prior

petition attac king the con viction was resol ved on the meri ts, the trial court may

summarily

dismiss the petition. Tenn. C ode Ann. § 40-30-206( b) (Supp. 1996). The ju dgment of the tria l court is affirmed pursuant to R ule 20 of th e Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

JOE G. RILEY , JUDGE

CONCUR:

JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JU DGE

DAVID H. WELLE S, JUDGE