### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
EA R LY H. M IL ES , P R O S E v
. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 99-A- 118 J. Randall Wyatt, Judge

No. M2003- 02849-CCA -R3-P C - F iled October 18, 2004

Th e Pe tit ion e r, Ea

rl y H. Mil e s, app e a ls the tr ia l c ou rt ' s d ism iss a l of his pe tit ion fo r p os tconviction re lief or in the a lternative f or writ of ha

beas c orpus. The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial court' s denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition outsi de the statute of limit ations for post-conviction purposes. The petition was not filed in the prope r court for habe as cor pus pu rp os e s, a ndthe pe tit ion e r d id n ot g ive a ny re a so n in the pe tit ion fo r n ot a pp ly ing to the ne are st court a s require d by

law. Ac cording ly , the State' s motion i s g rante d, and the judg ment of the trial court is af firmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als
RO B ERT W. WE DE ME YE R, J., de liv e re d the op ini on of the c ou rt , in wh ic h D AV I D H . WE LLES, J ., and JER RY L . SMI TH, J., j oined. Early H. Miles, pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & R eporte r; Rache l E. Wil lis, Assist ant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION
This matter is befor e the c ourt upon motion of the appellee , the State of Te nnessee , to affirm the judg ment in this case pursua nt to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appe als. The petitioner is appea ling the trial court' s dismis sal of his “pe tition t o vacate and/or se t aside judg ment pursuant to post-conviction re lief or in the a lternative f or writ of ha

beas c orpus.” From the re cord it appear s that petitioner pled g uilty to three counts of agg ravated s exual battery on October 8, 1999. I t does not appea

r that petitioner a

pp eale d the judg ment. On Octobe r 20, 2003, petitioner f iled a do c ume nt t itl e d p e tit ion to va c a te a nd /or se t asi de jud g me nt p ur su a nt t o p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f o r i n the alternative for

writ of habea s corpus. The trial c ourt dismissed the petition on October 30, 2003,finding that the post -c o n v iction petition was barr ed by the statute of limitations and the writ of habea s corpus wa s filed in the wrong venue.
Tenne ssee C o d e A n n o ta

te d Se ction 40-30-102( a) pr ovides that a pe tition for post-conviction relief must be filed within one y ear from final judgme nt. The appellant filed hi s petition well bey ond the tim e a llo we d b y

the statut e , a ndno ne of the e nu me rate d exce pti on s to th is t ime lim it a pp ly in this case
. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102( b). Unde r the Post-Conviction ProcedureAct, exceptions to the statute of limitations are explicitlyset forth, i.e., (1) c laims based upon a n ew r ule of constitutional law applicable to a petitioner' s case , (2) c lai m s based upon ne w scientific e vidence showing innocenc e, and (3) claims based upon sente nces tha t were enhanc ed bec ause of a pre vious conviction and the pr evious conviction wa s subsequently found t o be il leg al. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102( b)(1) -(3) (2003 Repl.). Petitioner has f ailed to assert one of these e x ceptions for tolling the statute. He cites no new constitut ional rule, re fer s to no new scientific evidenc e, and ma kes no claim that an ear lier convic tion has been ove rturned. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-106(g ) (2003 Re p l .). Thus, no g rounds exist as an e x ception to the statute of limitations. The petitioner’s judgme nt beca me final on Oc tober 8, 1999, a nd he did not file his petition for post-conviction re lief un til Oc tob e r 2 0, 20 03 . T he pe tit ion is b arr e d b y the statut e of

lim itatio ns
. Be cause the petition was sty led i n the alternative as a writ of habea s corpus, the lowe r court revie wed it f

or habea s corpus purposes and dismiss ed it beca use it was not filed in the prope r venue
. An app li c a tio n f

or ha be a s c or pu s r e lie f " sh ou ld b e ma de to the c ou rt or jud g e mos t c on ve nie nt i n point of distance to the applicant, unl ess a sufficie nt rea son be given in the petit ion for not apply ing to such court or

judge ." Ten n
. C o d e An n
. § 29-21-105. The appellant is inca rce rate d in the Northwe st Correctional Complex i n L ake County in West Tennessee. H oweve r, he f iled his petition in Davidson County , which is located in Middle Tenne ssee. The appellant failed to explain why he didno t f ile his pe tit ion in the c ou nty in w hi ch he is inc arc e rate d. Th e tr ia l c ou rt wa s c or re c t in dismiss ing the petition because it was not filed in the appr opriate ve nue.
Acc ording ly , the state' s motion i s here by g rante d. The judg ment is a ffirme d in acc ordanc e wi th Rul e 20 , Rul e s of

the Cou rt of Cr imi na l A pp e a ls. Th e re be ing no fi nd ing that th e app e lla nt i s ind ig e nt, c os ts a

re ta xedto the app e lla nt.

____________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE