### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT NASHVILLE LA R R Y D . TU R N LE Y , P R O S E v . STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 95-B-111 J. Randall Wyatt, Judge

No. M2003- 02153-CCA -R3-HC - F iled Novem ber 9, 2004

The Petitioner, L arry

D. Turnley , appea ls the trial court' s dismis sal of his petition for the writ of habea s corpus, whic h was tre ated a s a petition for post- c onviction relief by the trial court. The State has filed a

motion requesting that this Court affirm the trial c ourt' s denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition outsi de the statute of limitations for post-conviction purposes. More over, the petitioner is incar cer ated in a fede ral prison, a nd fede ral prisone rs ar e spec ifically excluded from state ha

beas c orpus re lief. Acc ording ly , the State' s motion i s g rante d, and the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als ROBERT W

. WEDEMEYER, J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and JER RY L . SMI TH, JJ ., joined.
L arry Turnley , pro se. Paul G . Su mme rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; El iza be th B . M arn e y , A ssi sta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION This matter is be fore the court upon motion of the appellee , the State of Te nnessee , to affirm the judg ment i n this case pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner is appea ling the trial court' s dismis sal of his “Petition for Writ of Habe as Corpus Nunc Pro Tu nc , to Va c a te , Se t A sid e or Cor re c t a n I lle g a l Judg me nt. ” I t app e ars that pe tit ion e r ple d g uil ty to tw o c ou nts of

re c kle ss a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult in O c tob e r 1 99 5. Th e c ou rt is u nc e rt a in o f the e xac t date be c a us e the pe tit ion e r f

a ile d to a tta c h a

c op y of the jud g me nt t o h is p e tit ion . T he pe tit ion e r a sse rt s in his petiti on that he ente red a plea on October 18, 1995, and the court asserts in it s order deny ing the petition that the petitioner pled g uiltyon October 19, 1995.On J uly 28, 2003, petitioner filed t h e p l ea d i n g titled Petit ion for Writ of Habe as Corpus Nunc Pro Tunc , to Vacate, Set A side or Correc t an I lleg al J udg ment. Ba sically , the petitioner a rg ued that his plea wa s not know ingly and voluntarily enter ed and that his counsel was ine ffe ctive. The trial court tre ated the ple ading as a pe tition for post-conviction relief and found that it was barre d by the statute of limitations.
Pe ti tione r’ s c la ims are no t c og niza ble ha be a s c or pu s is su e s, bu t are app ro pria te considerations for post-conviction re lief. T e n n e s s e eCo d eA n n o ta te d Se c tion 40- 30-102(a ) provides that a petition f

or post-conviction relief must be filed within one y ear from final j u d gm en t

. T he appellant f

iled his petition well bey ond the time allowed by the statute, and none of the e numerated exceptions to thi s time lim it apply in this case. S ee T en n . C o d e Ann. § 40- 30-102(b) . Under the Post-Convi ction Procedur e Ac t, exceptions to t he statute of limitations are e x plicitly set forth, i.e., (1 ) c la ims ba se d u po n a

ne w ru le of

c on sti tut ion a l la w a

pp lic able to a

pe tit ion e r' s c a se , ( 2) c la ims based upon new sc ientific evide nce show ing innoc ence , and (3) claims based upon se ntence s that wer e enhanced be cause of a pr evious c o n v ic ti o nand the pre vious conviction was subseque ntly found to be illeg al. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-102(b) (1)- (3) (2003 Repl.). Petitioner has failed to a ssert one of the se exceptions for tolling the statute. He cites no new constitutional rule , ref ers to no ne w scientific e vidence , and make s no claim that an e arlier conviction has bee n overturne d. See Te nn. Code Ann. § 40

- 3 0

- 1 0 6 ( g ) ( 2 0 0 3 Re p l. )

. T h u s , n o g r o u n d s e xis t a s a n e xc e p ti o n to th e s tatu te of limit ations. The petitioner’s judgme nt be came final in O ctober 1999, and he did not file his pleading un til Oc tob e r 2 0, 20 03 . T he pe tit ion is b arr e d b y the statut e of

lim itatio ns . As this court has pre viouslystated, petitioner’ s claims are not co gn i z ab l e habe as cor pus claims. Moreove r, petitioner is not be e ntitled t o habea s corpus re lief as he is incarc erated in a fede ral pri s o n , a n d f

e d e r a l p r is o n e r s ar e s p e c if ic a ll y e xc lu d e d f

r o m h ab e a s c o rp u s r e li e f

. Se e Church v. State,987 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) citi ng Tenn. Code Ann. S ec. 29- 21- 101 as follows: “Any person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty , under a ny prete nse whatsoever, except [t hose held unde r fe dera l authority ], m ay prosec ute a writ of habea s corpus to inquire into the c a us e of su c h impriso nme nt andre str a int .” B e c a us e the pe tit ion e r is he ld in a fe de ra l priso n, he is not entitled to state habea s corpus re lief.
B a sed on th e fo re g oin g , th e state ' s mo tio n is he re by g rante d. Th e jud g me nt i s a ff ir me d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of t he C ourt of C riminal Appea ls. Be cause it appea rs the appe llant is indigent, c osts are ta x ed to the state.

____________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE