1 More s pecifically, the ap pellant alleges th at his pleas wer e not know ingly and volu ntaril y e ntered (F or
e xample, he asserts that he was not made aware at the t ime the pleas were entered that the resul ting convictions subseque ntly “could be used by another agenc y of L aw En forcement [si c] for enhancement

purposes”); th

at counsel provided ineff

ective repres entation;

etc. 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON
EARNEST L. WHITE v. STATE OF TEN NESSEE
Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. P 23689

No. W2000-01908-CCA-R3-PC - Filed March 14, 2001

ORDER

The petitioner, Earnest L. White, appeals the order of the Shelby County Criminal Court summarily dismissing his habeas corpus/post-conviction petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing or appointing counsel. Though styled as a petition for habeas corpus relief, White

asserts therein that ten of his 1984 convict

ions should

be set aside because of constitutional infirmities in theprocess surrounding the entry of his guilty pleas for these offenses. 1 As the issues raised provide no basis for habeas corpus relief but

rather set out traditional post-conviction concerns, the trial court considered this pro se petition as one for post-conviction relief. However, the trial court thereafter found that t h e petition had been filed past the applicable statute of limitations and, therefore, dismissed the petition. After a reviewof the record before this Court, we find that the judgment of the trial court should be affirme

d pursuant to Rule 20

, Tennessee Cour

t of Criminal Appea

ls. Since the time of the peti tioner’s ple as, the Tennessee post-conviction procedure has undergone

revision. For example, the 1986 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-102 placed a three ye

ar statute of limita

tions on the filing

of post-convictio

n petitio ns. Fo r those convictedprior to the enactment of this amendment, this three year period began running on July 1, 1986. See e.g. , State v. Masucci , 754 S.W.2d 90, 91 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988). Then, in 1995, the state legislature shortened the period of limitation to one year calculated from “the date of the final action of the highest

appellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken,” to one year from “the date on which the judgment became final.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(a). Furthermore, under Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-30-202(b), a court does not have jurisdiction to consider a petition for post-conviction relief if it was filed outside the one-year statute of limitation unless: (1) The claim

in the petition is based upon a final ruling of an appellate court establishing a constitutional right that was not recognized asexisting at the time of trial, if r etrospective application of that right is required ... ; (2) The claim in the2 The technical record only contains indictments, j udgments, etc. related to nine of t he ten convictions referenced

by the appellant. However, his petiti on indicates that all t

en sentences were set to ru n concurrently to one another, and the cas

e number for

the missing conviction is lower than the remaining nine. A s such, it makes sense that the li mitati on period has

run for t his off ense als o. -2- petition is based u pon new scientific evidence estab

lishing that such p

etitioner is actually innocent of

the offense or offenses for which the petitioner was convicted;
or (3) The cl aim asserted in the petition seeks relief from a sentence that was enhanced because of a previous conviction and such conviction in the case in which the claim is asserted was not a guilty plea with an agreed sentence, and the previous conviction has subsequently been held to be invalid .... Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202.

In the case presently before t his C ourt, White filed his petition well beyond the expiration of both of the aforementioned statutes of limitation. 2 Moreover, his cla ims do not fall

within any of the exceptions above-

noted which would

toll the limitations period. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 20, Tennesse

e Court of Criminal A

ppeals. Becau

se it appears to the Court that Appellant, Earnest L. White, is indigent, costs will be paid by the State.

____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE

____________________________________ JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

____________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE