# FILED
September 30, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMIN AL APPEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE AUGUST 1997 SESSION

STATE OF TENNESSEE ) ) NO. 03C01-9609- CR-00353 Appellee, ) ) ROANE COUN TY CRIMIN AL v. ) ) Hon. E. E ugene Eb len, Jud ge W ILLIAM PERRY THOMPSON ) ) (Post-C onv ict ion Rel ief) Appellant. )

FOR THE APPELLANT FOR THE APPELLEE Joe H. Walker Charles W. Burson Public Defender Attorney Gen eral & Repor ter P.O. Box 334 Harriman, TN. 37748 Peter M. Coug hlan Assistant Att orney Gener al Walter B. Johnson, II Criminal J ustice Div ision Assistant Publ ic Defender 450 James Roberts on Parkway P.O. Box 334 Nashvil le, TN. 37243 Harriman, TN. 37748 Char les E . Hawk Distric t Attorney General P.O. Box 703 Kingston, TN. 37763

OPINION FILE D:___________________ AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO R ULE 20 W ILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE2 OPINION The appellant, William Perry Thompson, appeals the R oane County C riminal Court’s dismissal, without a hearing, of his petition f or post-conviction relief. W e affirm the trial court. On Octob er 23, 19 95, the appella nt was convic ted and senten ced as a Ra nge II offender in the Roane County Cr iminal Court for theft over t en thousand ($10,000) dollars. The t rial court

sentenced the appel lant to six years i mprisonment. No appeal was taken fro m that convic tion and sentence. On March 6, 1996, the appe llant filed a post-conviction petition a lleging that his 1995 sentence was improperly enhance d by his prior convictions. He alleges that his prior convictions were unconstitutional because his guilty pleas in those cases were not made knowi ngly and voluntari ly. Those pr ior convi ctions date back to 1989 and include the foll owing: (1) On Mar ch 17, 1989, the appel lant pled gui lty and was sentenced by t he Roane County Criminal Court on two counts of grand larceny and one count of conceali ng stolen pr operty valued over two hundred ( $200) dollars ; (2) On December 14, 19 89, the appellant pled guilt y and wa s later sente nced by the Roan e Cou nty Cri mina l Cour t on o ne co unt o f gra nd la rcen y, thi rd de gree b urgla ry, and false pretenses

over two hundred ($200) dollars; and (3) In 1990, theappellant pled guilt y and wa s sentenced by the Knox Cou nty Cri minal Court on one charge of second degree burglary and a separate c harge of burg lary. The appellant has nev

er challeng ed any of the above convicti ons or sentences until his 1996post-conv iction petit ion. The trial court dismi ssed the petiti on as being time barred by

the three-year statute of li mitations. SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-102 (repealed 1995)

. The appellant’s onl y issue on appeal is that the trial court erred i n dismissing his post-conv iction petit ion withou t a hearing. The appellant re lies on Burford v. St ate , 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) to assert that a hearing was req uired to deter mine if the three-year

statute of limit ations properl y applied t o his petiti on. His re liance on Burford3

is mis placed . The r ule fro m Burford , as now codified in Tennessee C ode Annotated section 40-30- 202 (b)(3), applies in cases where petitioners challenge t he validi ty of their sentence as enhanced by prior conv ictions that have subseq uently been overturned. In those cases , our supreme court has held t hat strict application of the three-year

statute of limit ations in Tenness ee Code Annotated sec tion 40-30-102 would res ult in a v iolation of the peti tioner’s r ights to due process. See Burford , 845 S.W.2d at 208-209. In th e app ella nt’s case , howe ver, h is pri or co nvict ions in 19 89 an d 199 0 have never been reviewed or overturned. The appellant is essentia lly requesting this Court to review the valid ity of his p rior conv ictions almost eight years after he entered guilty pleas in those cases. Any post-conv iction chall enge pertaini ng to the 1989 and 1990 convicti ons is clear ly time bar red by the t hree-year statute of limit ations. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102 (repealed 1995 ). Absent a review and finding that h is prior convictions are invalid, the appellant’s present cha llenge to his 1995 sentence is without mer it. The appellant waited until 199 6 to raise any challenge concerning his convicti ons in 1989 and 1990. Consequentl y, any p resent rev iew of those pr ior convicti ons is time- barred. Under the mandate set forth i n Tennessee Code Annotated section 40 -30-206(b), the trial court properly dismissed the app ellant’s petition. Pursuant to Rul e 20, Rules of the C ourt of Crimina l Appeals, we affirm the judgment of the tr ial court.

______________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDG E4

CONCUR:

_______________________________ GARY R. WADE, JUDGE

_______________________________ PAUL G. SUMM ERS, JUDGE