# FILED
April 6, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVI LLE
WILLIAM LEWI S HOWELL, * Appellant, * C.C.A. # 03C01-98 06-CR-00200 VS. * KNOX COUNTY STATE OF TENNESSEE, * Appellee. * OPINION The pro se petitioner, William Lewis Howell, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. The issue prese nted for review is whether the petition is barred by the statute of limitations. We affirm the dismissal pursuant to Rule 20, Tenn. Ct. C rim. App.

In 1985, the petitioner pled g uilty to joyridi ng and received an elev en month, twenty-nine day sentence. Thirteen years later, the petitioner filed this petition for post-convic

tion relief, alleging

an unknowing guilt

y plea and the ineffective assistance of counsel . The trial court dismiss ed the petition without a hearing or the appointment of couns el. In this appeal of right , the petitioner acknowledges that his petition was filed untimely but claims as an excuse that his trial counsel had mistakenl y advised that he could not file a petition because no record was made of the plea pr oceedings.

Under the Post-Convic tion Procedure Act of 1995, a petit ion must be filed "within one (1) y

ear of the date of the final action of the hig hest state appellate court to which an appeal i s taken or, if no appeal is tak en, within one (1) y

ear of the date on which the judgment became final, or consideration of suc h petition shall be barred." Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202 (a). The statute provides that the limitations period "shall not be tolled for any reason, including

any tolling or sav

ing provisionotherwise availabl e at law or equity ." Id . Thus, this petition, filed w ell beyond the one year allowed, is

barred by the statute of li mitations. Id

.
The only exceptions to the limitations period are when the claim is based upon a new rule of constitutional law applicabl e to the petitioner's case, the claim is based upon new scientific evidence showing innocence, or the claim is based upon an enhanced sentence that w as enhanced because of convictio ns that have subsequently been found t o be illegal. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(b). The petitioner's claims of ineffectiv e assistance of counsel and an unknow ing guilty plea are not based on new rules of constitutional law. See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Boykin v . Alabama , 395 U.S. 238 (1969). The allegations in the petition clearly do not

satisfy any excepti on to the statute of limitations.
Moreover, the petitioner 's claim that he did not file a timely petition because his attorney adv ised him he could not file one does not afford the petitioner any relief. This court has previously rule

d that failure to comply w ith the statute of limitations, even w

hen based upon erroneous advic e from an attorney, does not provide an exception to the statute of limitations. State v. Phillips , 904 S.W.2d 123, 124 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

Accordingly, the j udgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs shall be taxed to the state.

_________________________________ Gary R. Wad e, Presiding Judge CONCUR:

________________________________ James Curwood W itt, Jr., Judge

__________________________________ Norma McGee Ogle, Judge