FILED

March 24, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

FEBRUARY SESSION, 1998

CHARLES SHELTON, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9707-CR-00236

)

Appellant, )

) GREENE COUNTY

V. ) 

)

) HON. JAMES E. BECKNER, JUDGE

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) 

)

Appellee. ) (POST-CONVICTION) 

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

CHARLES SHELTON, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP 

#117031, N.E.C.C. Attorney General & Reporter

P.O. Box 5000 

Mountain City, TN 37683-5000 ELLEN H. POLLACK 

Assistant Attorney General

2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building

425 Fifth Avenue North 

Nashville, TN 37243

C. BERKELEY BELL, JR.

District Attorney General 

Greene County Office Complex 

113-J West Church Street

Greeneville, TN 37745

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED 

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-

OPINION

The Petitioner, Charles Shelton, appeals the order of the Greene County

Criminal Court dismissing his pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The trial court

found that the petition was filed outside the statute of limitations. In this appeal,

Petitioner raises numerous issues which can collectively be summarized as

challenging the trial court’s ruling that the petition for post-conviction relief is timebarred. After a review of the record, we affirm the trial court’s denial of postconviction relief.

Petitioner pled guilty on June 19, 1987 to various sexual crimes and was

convicted of those crimes. Petitioner did not appeal any of the convic tions.

Petitioner’s convictions are controlled by a three-year statute of limitations under

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-30-102 (repealed 1995). He therefore

needed to file his petition by June 19, 1990 in order to toll the running of the statute.

However, Petitioner did not file a petition for post-conviction relief until May 16, 1997,

thus barring any claims he might have had. 

Furthermore, Petitioner’s petition is not revived by the new Post-Conviction

Procedure Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq. The Tennessee

Supreme court recently held the following:

[The new Act] is not intended to revive claims that were barred by the

previous statute of limitations. We agree with the view that the statute

was intended to restrict the time and opportunity to seek post-conviction

relief. Clearly, this purpose is not served by a statutory construction

that allows additional time and opportunity for petitioners whose claims

are already barred by the prior statute of limitations.
-3-

Carter v. State, 952 S.W.2d 417, 420 (Tenn. 1997). Therefore, “petitioners for whom

the statute of limitations expired prior to the effective date of the new Act, i.e., May

10, 1995, do not have an additional year in which to file petitions for post-conviction

relief.” Id. at 418. Even if arguendo the new Act did grant one additional year in

which to file, Petitioner waited two years before first filing his petition. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court correctly found that the petition

was barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore, a summary dismissal of the

petition was appropriate. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-206(b).

____________________________________

THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JERRY L. SMITH, Judge

___________________________________

WILLIAM B. ACREE, JR., Special Judge