# FILED November 25, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT JACKSON SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1996
TOM MIE L . HILL J R., ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9511- CC-00335 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) MADISON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. WHI T LAF ON STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-conv icti on)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : TOMMIE L. HILL, JR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney Generaland Reporter CCA/SCCF, P. O. Box 279 Clifton, TN 38425-0279 WILLIAM D. BRIDGERS Assistant Attorney General MARY ANNE QUEEN Legal Assistant 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashvill e, TN 37243 JERRY W OODALL Distri ct Attorney General SHAUN A. BROWN Assistant Distri ct Attorney 225 Martin Lu ther Kind Jr. Drive Jackson, TN 38301
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE-2- 

## OPINION

I n this case Appel lant, Tommie L. Hi ll, J r., appeal s the summar y dismissal of his pet ition f or post-conv iction relief filed on June 1, 1995. Following
a carefu l review of the re cord in this case we af firm the j udgment of the t rial court.

1. FACTUAL BA CKGROUND On May 9, 1991, i n Case No. 90-433, Appel lant wasconvicted by a jury for the sale and delivery of co caine. On June 11, 1991, t he trialcourt sentenced the petiti oneras a Ra nge III off end er to 25 year s in the Tennessee Depart ment of Correction.

On April 26, 19 93, Ap pellan t appe aled to this Court and raised four issues. This Court he ld that: (1) test imony about Appell ant’s char acter or reputati on was not error, and even if it was error, it was harmles s; (2) the trial court pro perl y refused to allow into evidence theprior conv iction s of the i nformant; (3) the trial court did not err by re fusing to a llow the tes timony o f a defense witness because Appellant

failedto lay a f

oundation for the testimony; and (4) Appellant was not eligible for Range III puni shment pursuant to Tenn. Code A nn. 39-17-41 7(c)(1), and thus, thetrialcourt err ed in sentenci ng Appellant - State v. Tom my Le e Hill, Jr. , Madiso n count

y, C. C.A. 02C01-9212-CC-00285, Opinion fi led December 1, 1993, at Jackson. This Court vacated Appellant’ s sentence, remanded the case to the trial court for resentencing, and af firmed the j udgment of the trial i n all ot her respects. The trialcourt resentenced Appellant on December 14, 1994.-3- On September 11, 1991, in Case Nos. 90-432, 90-434, 90-1000, 90- 1127, 91-198, 91-199, and 91-682, Appellant pleaded guil ty to two co un ts of sal e of cocaine, theft over $1,000 , posses sion of co caine w ith intent to sell, possession of a handgun while be ing a convi cted fel on, hinderi ng a secured credi tor, and felony escap e. Appellant did not appealthese convi ction.

On June 1, 1995, Appel lant fi led a pro se petiti on for post-convi ction rel ief in Case No. 90-433 and Case Nos. 90- 432, 90-1000, 90- 1127, 91-198, 91-199, and 91-682. He all eged that hi s guilt y pleasin Case No. 90-433 and Case Nos. 90-432, 90-10 00, 9 0-1127, 91-198, 91-199, and 91-682 were entered uninte lligently a nd un know ingly du e to the ineffec tivenes s of his tr ial cou nsel.

On A ugust 4, 1995, the tri al court di smissed the post-convicti on pe titio n and ruled: (1 ) the pe tition wa s filed o utside the thre e year statute of limita tions in Ca se Nos. 90 -432, 90 -1000, 9 0-1127 , 91-198 , 91-199 , and 91 -682; and (2 ) regardin g Case No. 90-4 33, the pe titioner allege d no gro unds fo r relief.

2. STA TUTE OF LI MITATI ONS It is clear

thatthe pe tition for p ost-co nviction relief, in s o far as it relates to
cases 90- 432, 90-10 00, 90 -1127 , 91-19 8, 91-1 99, an d 91-6 82, wa s prop erly dismissed sum marily since it is clearly barred b y the app licable thre e year sta tute of limitations
. See

. Tenn . Code Ann. §4 0-30-10 2 (Rep ealed). Appellant nev er appealed his convic ti ons in these ca ses an d thus the time for filing fo r postconvicti on relief

with respec

t to them expi red on September 11, 1994. The instant petiti on filedon June 1, 1995, i s obviousl y time-bar red.-4- Appe llant

claim s that h e did n ot disc over h is coun sel’s all ege d ineffecti veness until December 14, 1994. In Burford v. State , 845 S.W.2d 204 (Tenn. 1992); our

state s upreme court held that a post- conviction peti tioner must be exc usedfrom th e st ri ct o perati on of thestatute of

li mi tationswhere a new issue arises near

the end of t he lim itati ons period or after t he period ther eby depriving a petitione r of a fair opp ortunity to litigate the issue
. Id. at 208.

In this case how ever, Appellant s imply fai led to di scover the f actual basis of an all eged c laim of ine ffectivenes s of coun sel. Burford does n ot apply to a post-c onvictio n petitio ner wh o sim ply slept on his ri ghts to seek post-convict ion relief. Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W .2d 619 , 625-26 (Tenn . C rim . App. 1994 ). Therefore, the post-c onviction p etition was time-ba rred and properly d enied w ith respect to the cases noted abov e.

3. CASE NO. 90 -433 AN D TH E LAC K OF A CON STITU TION AL CLA IM Although the petit ion for post-convi ction rel iefwas time ly filed with regard to Case No. 90-433 , it fails to state grounds for which po st-convi ction rel ief can be granted. Post-convict ion reli ef can b e gr anted only when a convicti on or sentence is void o r voida ble because of an abri dgement of a ri ght guaranteed by the federal or s tate cons titutions. Tenn . Code Ann. § 4 0-30-10 5. The petition is this case alleges that an involuntary guilty plea was entered in Case No. 90-433
as the result

of all eged ineffec

tiveness of

counsel. Thi s is somewhat puzzling since Appellant wa s convicted by a jury upon a pl ea of not gui lty i n Cae No.90- 433. Thus, we are unable to find a const ituti onal clai m in the peti tion regar ding Case No. 90-433.-5- Wh ere a post-convict ion pet iti on conclu sivel y shows that the petition er is not entitled to re lief, it is properly su bject to sum mary dis missal. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30 -109; Givens v. State , 702 S.W
. 2d 578, 580 (Tenn. Cri m. App. 1985). For t hese reasons the j udgment of the t rial cour t is af firmed.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESI DING J UDGE

___________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE