# FILED
March 24, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRUARY SESS ION, 1998

CHARLES SHELTON, ) C.C.A.NO. 03C01-9707-CR-00236 ) Appe llant, ) ) GREENE COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON.JAMES E . BECKN ER, J UDGE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) (POST-C ONVIC TION)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : CHAR LES S HEL TON , pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP #1170 31, N.E .C.C. Attorney General& Reporter P.O. Box 5000 Mount ain Ci ty, TN 37683-5000 ELLEN H. POLLACK Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvill e, TN 37243 C. BERKELEY

BELL, J R. District Attorn ey Ge neral Greene County O ffice Comp lex 113-J West Church Street Greenevill e, TN 37745

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

The Petiti oner, Charles Shelton, appeal s the order of the Greene Coun ty Criminal Court dismissing his pro sepetiti on for post-con viction relief. The trial court found that the petit ion was fi led outsi de the stat ute of li mitations . In thi s appea l , P etiti oner raises numerous i ssues which can col lectiv ely be summarized a s challengi ng the tri al court’ s ruling that the pet ition f or post-conv iction r e lief i s timeb arred. After a r

eview of t he record, we af firm the t rial cour

t’s den ial of post conviction relief.

Petiti oner pled guilty on June 19, 1987 to various sexual cr imes and was convicted of those cr imes. Petit ioner did n ot appeal any of the convic tio ns. Petition er’s convicti ons are control led by a three-year statute of limi tations under Tennessee Code Ann otated section 4 0-30-102 (rep ealed 1995 ). He therefore needed to file his petiti on by June 19, 1990 i n order to toll the running of t he statute. Howeve r, Petition er did not fil e a petiti on for post- convicti on relief until May 16, 1997, thus ba rring any c laims he might ha ve had.
Furthermore, Petiti oner’s petition is no t revive d by the new Post- Convicti on Procedu re Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40 -30-201 et seq . The Tennessee Supreme court recent ly held t he following: [The new Act] is not intendedto revi ve claims t hat were barred by the previousstatute of li mitations . We agree with theview that the statute was intended to restri ct the ti me and opportunit y to seek po st- convicti on reli ef. Clea rly, this purpos e is not ser ved by a stat utory const ruction that allows addi tional time and opportunity for petiti oners whose cl aims are already barred by the pr ior statute of limitati ons.-3-

Carter v. State , 952 S.W.2d 417, 420 (T enn. 1997 ). Therefore, “ petiti oners for whom the statute of limitations expi red prior to the effec tive date of the new Act, i.e., May 10, 1995, do not havean additi onal year in which to fil e petiti ons for post -convict ion relie f. ” Id . at 418. Ev en if arguendo the ne w Act d id gran t one a ddition al year in which to file, P etitioner wa ited two ye ars befo re first filing his pe tition.
According ly, we co nclud e that th e trial co urt corr ectly fou nd that the petiti on was barred by t he statute of limi tations, and therefor e, a summary dismissalof the petition was app ropriate. Tenn . Code An n. § 40-30-20 6(b).

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

___________________________________ WILLIAM B. ACREE, JR., Special Judge