# FILED
March 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE DECEMB ER SESSION, 1997
HAROLD VERNON SMI TH, ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9704-CR-00130 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) HAWKINS COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JAMES E. BECKNER STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Convi ction)

ON APPEA L FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF HAWKINS COUNTY
FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : HAROLD VERNON SMI TH JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney Generaland Reporter Ann X N. E.C. C. P.O. Box 5000 SANDY COPOUS PATRI CK Mountain City , TN 37683-5000 Assistant Attorney General 425 5th Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243 C. BERKELEY BELL Distri ct Attorney General DOUG GODBEE Assistant Distri ct Attorney General Courthouse, Main Street Rogersvill e, TN 37857

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE-2- 

# ORDER

The Petiti oner, Harold Vernon Smith, appeal s the tri al court’s dismissal of his pro sepetiti on for post-convicti on relief . The is the l atest in stallment ofhi s collateral challengesto his life sentence as an ha bitual c riminal.In his pet ition, he arg ued that

theind ictme nts for t he underlyi ng offenses failed to charge essentialelements of t he offenses. The tria l court dism issed the petition. W e conclude that

the Ap pellant is not entitled to post-co nvict ion rel ief andwe therefo re affirm the trial c ourt’s o rder of dism issal.

The Petiti oner was convic ted offive count

s ofarmed robbery on June 15, 1981 and sentenced to l ife impri sonment as an habitualcriminal . The convictions
were affirmed by this Court on J une 11, 1982 and the supr eme court denied permission to appe al on Se ptemb er 7, 198 2. State v. S mith , 639 S. W.2d 677 (Tenn. Cri m. App.) perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1982). The Petiti oner fil ed the current petiti on for post-convicti on r elief o n January 2 4, 1997. Th e trial court dismissed the petiti on without a hearing on Februar y 28, 1997, finding t hat it was barred by the statute of limitati ons. The Petitioner now appeals.

The new P ost-C onvictio n Pro cedu re Act g overn s this pe tit io n and all petiti ons filed after Ma y 10, 199 5. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 201 et seq. (Supp. 1996). T his Act pro vides, in pe rtinent part, that “not withstandi ng any other provisi on of this

part to the contrary , anyper son having ground for rel ief recognized under this part shallhave atleast one ( 1) year fr om May 10 , 1995, to file a petiti on or a m otion to reope n a pe tition un der this part.” C omp iler’s Notes-3-

to Ten n. Cod e Ann. § 40-30-2 01 (Su pp. 199 6) (referring to Acts 1995, ch. 207, § 3). T he convicti ons in questi on became final on September 7, 1982. The previousthree-yea r statute of lim itations be gan to run for the Petition er on J uly 1, 1986, and expir

ed on July 1, 1989. As a result, the Pet i tioner was al ready barred bythe previo us statute of limitations on the da te the new Act took effect, May 10, 1995. See Carter v. S tate , 952 S.W

. 2d 417 (Tenn. 1997). Nor does the Petition er’s claim fit within any of the sta tu torily-recogni zed exceptio ns to the statute of limitations

. See Tenn.C ode Ann . § 40-30-202 (b)--( c) (Supp.199 6). Thus, the trial c ourt did not err i n f inding t hat the petition was barr ed by the statute of l imitations.

Even if we were to addre ss the Petition er’s cla im on its me rits, we w ould conclude that i t has no merit . In support of his pet ition an d argument, the Petiti oner reli es primarily upon thedecision of this Co urt in State v. Rog er Da le Hill , C.C.A . No . 01C0 1-9508 -CC-0 0267, W ayne C ounty (T enn. C rim. App ., N a shvill e, June 20, 1996). We first note that this Court’s deci sion in Hill was based upon an inte rpreta tion of o ur new crimin al cod e, and this code i s applic able only to of

fenses occur ring after November 1,1989. Secondly,our supr eme court has rev

er sed th is Court’ s decision i n Hill
. See State v. Hill , 954 S.W .2d 725 (Te nn. 1997).

In the case sub judice , we have examined the l anguage of the chal lenged indict ment and we conclude that the indi ctment adequately alleged the criminal offensescharged and sufficient ly informed the Petitioner of the charges against him such that t he convicting court had jurisdictio n. We see no reason for f urther discussionor analysis. The Petitioner’s convict ions a re not void. T hus, h is-4-

petiti on presen ts no cognizable cl aim for the pu rposes of post-convict ion reli ef or habeas co rpus relief. See Charle s Edwa rd Orren v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01- 9704-CR-00141, Johnson County (Tenn. Cri m. App., Knoxvi lle, Feb. 13, 199 8); Georg e F. Jones , Jr. v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01- 9702-CR-00062, Johnson Coun ty (Ten n. C ri m. App., Kn oxville, Feb. 3 , 1998); Randy B laine Knight v. Carlton, Wa rd en , C.C.A. No. 03C01- 9705-CR-00162, Johnson County (Tenn. Cri m. App., Kn oxville, Jan. 2 6, 1998 ); Perry C . Riley v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01- 9705-CR-00181, Morgan County (Te nn. Crim. Ap p., Knoxville, Jan. 23, 19 98); Roy A. Burch v. State , C.C.A. N o. 03C 01-961 0-CR -00391 , Johnso n County, (Tenn. Cri m. App., Kn oxville, Jan. 1 6, 1998 ); State v. Dare l G. Bo lin , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9212-CR-00450, Cumberland County (Tenn. Crim. App., Knox vill e, Jan. 15, 199 8); Josep h Ron ald Duc los v. State , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9705-CR-00182, Morgan County (Tenn. Cri m. App., Knoxvi lle, J an. 16, 1998); State v. Rogers L. McKinley , C.C.A . No. 03C 01-961 2-CR -00455 , B l edsoe Cou nty (Ten n. C ri m. App., Knoxville, Ja n. 6, 1998 ); Timo thy W ayne Jo hnson v. B owlen, Warden , C.C.A. No. 03C01-9611-CR-00443, Bledsoe Coun ty (Tenn. Cri m. App., Kno xville , Dec. 23, 199 7); Darryl D ouglas Sheets v. State , C.C. A. No. 03C01- 9701- CR00031, Joh nsonCoun ty (Ten n. C ri m. App., Kn oxville, Dec . 23, 1997 ); Jerry Cox
v. State ,C.C. A. No. 03C0 1-9610 -CR-0 0392, J ohnso n Cou nty (Ten n. Crim. A pp., Knoxvill e, Dec. 23 , 1997); Bruce B elk v. State , C.C .A. No. 03C01- 9703- CR00109, Morga n Cou nty (Ten n. Crim. A pp., Kno xville, Dec. 23 , 1 997); A bel Rodriguez, Jr. v. State ,C. C.A. No. 03 C01-9 612-C R-004 63, Gre ene C ounty (Tenn. Cri m. App., Kn oxville, Dec . 23, 1997 ); Don ald Wa yne Ho lt v. State , C.C. A. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00059, Johnson Cou nty (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxvil le, Dec. 23, 1997); Gene Hibbard v. State , C.C.A

. No. 03C01-9702-CR-00077, Knox County (T enn. Crim. A pp., Knoxville, Dec. 23 , 1997).-5- We conc lude th at no e rror of la w requ irin g a rev ersal o f the jud gme nt is apparenton the re cord. Ba sed up on a tho rough re ading o f the record , the briefs ofthe parti es, and the l aw gover ning the issues pr esented for r

eview, t he judgmentof the tria l court is affirme d in ac corda nce w ith Rule 20 of the Court of Criminal Appeal s of Tennessee.

____________________________________ DAVID H. WELLES , JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE

___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL, JU DGE