1



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON

AR THU R Y AN CY , JR

. v. ST ATE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 97-CR -7679-R1 R . Lee M oore, Judge

No. W2006-00970-C CA-R 3-P C - F iled October 11, 2006

The Petitioner, Arthur Yanc y , J r., appea ls the trial court' s denial of his petition for post-conviction relief . The State ha s filed a motion reque sting that this Court affirm the trial c ourt' s denial of r elief pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 20 , Ru le s o f the Co urt of Cr im ina l A pp e a ls. B e c a us e the pe tit ion fo r p os tconviction re lief is time-barr ed by the statute of limitations, we g rant the State' s motion and affirm the jud g me nt o f the low e r c ou rt

.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t A ffirm e d P ur sua nt to Rul e 20 , R ule s o f the Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

A L AN E. G L EN N , J
., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYE S AND J.C. M C LIN , J J . joined.

Arthur Ya ncy , pro se.

Pa ul G . Su mme rs , At torne y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; B ri a n Cla y John so n, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l, for the a ppellee, the State of Tenne ssee.

M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

The Petitioner Arthur Yanc y , J r., entered a plea of g uiltyto one count of the sale of c ocaine less than .5 g rams on Mar ch 19, 1998. For this conviction, the trial court sente nced the Petitioner to three y ear s, suspended upon service of ninety day s confine ment and thre e y ear s probation. The2

Petitioner did not reserve a ce rtified question of law for this Court’s revie w nor d i d t he Petitioner appea l the sentenc e imposed.

On Ap ri l 10 , 200 6, the Pe tit ion e r fi le d a pet iti on fo r pos t- c on vic tio n re lie f in the L ake Cou nty Circuit Court. As gr ounds for the pe tition, t he Petitioner cla imed that newly discovere d evidenc e established his “ actua l innoc ence ,” that the prosec ution f ailed to disclose exculpatory evidenc e, that trial cou n s el wa s ineffe ctive, and that the sentenc e imposed violates the holding of Blakely v. W ashington. I n support of his claim of innocenc e, the Petitioner attache d the “De clar ation of Hurle y Marc h,” in which Mr. March de clar ed that the Petitioner “ play ed no role whatsoeve r” in the “ sales
transac tion with the St ate’ s CI , nor did he provide the controlled substanc e t o me.” Mr. Ma rch further decla red tha t both the pr osecution and the Petitioner’s counsel knew this information prior to the Petitioner’s g uilty plea. By order enter ed April 27, 2006, the lower c ourt summarily dismiss ed the petition as being time-barr ed. The lower court further acknow ledg ed that the “ alleg ations of the [P ]etit ioner do not fit within the exceptions to the statute of limit ations set forth in T.C.A. § 40-30- 10 2. ” On Ma y

8, 20 06 , th e Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a no tic e of app e a l do c ume nt.

Pursuant to Tennesse e Code Annota ted s ec t ion 40-30-102(a ) (2003) , a per son in custody under a sentenc e of a

court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief within one y ear of the date of

the final a ction of the hig hest state appellate court to w hich an appea l is taken or, if no

appe a l is take n, wi thi n o ne y e a r o f the da te on wh ic h th e jud g me nt b e c ome s f ina l. T he statut e emphasizes that "[t]i me is of the esse nce of the rig ht to file a petition for post-c onviction relief or motion to reopen established by this chapter, and the one- y ear limit ations period is an element of the rig ht to file such an a ction and is a c ondition upon i t s ex erc ise." The Petitioner’s g uiltyplea wa s enter ed on Mar ch 19, 1998. The prese nt petition was not filed until April 10, 2006, well outside the

app lic able statut e of

lim itatio ns . Wh ile du e pr oc e ss dic ta te s tha t the statut e of lim itatio ns no t be so stric tly app lie d a s to den y

a pe rs on the op po rtun ity

to h a ve his c la im h e arda ndde te rm ine d a t a meaning ful time and in a mea ningf ul manner, Sta te v . M

c Kni gh t, 51 S.W. 3d 55 9 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) ; Se als v. State, 23 S.W. 3d

27 2 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Burford v . State, 845 S.W .2d 204 (Tenn. 1992) , the exceptions to the statute of limitations are expli cit ly limit ed, i.e., (1) c laims based upon a ne w rule of constitutional law applicable to a petitioner' s case , (2) c laims b ased upon ne w scientific e vidence showing innocenc e, and (3) claims based upon enhanc ed sentences that wer e enhance d beca use of convictions subsequently found to be illeg al. See T.C.A. § 40-30-102( b)(1) - (3) . Petitioner has fa ile d to a sse rt

on e of the se e xce pti on s f

or tol lin g the statut e . He refe rs to n o n e w s c ie nti fi c evidenc e and ma

kes no cla im that an ea

rlier c onviction has bee n overturne d. See T.C.A. § 40-30- 10 6( g ). F urthe rm or e , th is C ou rt ha s p re vio us ly

he ld that r e tr os pe c tive app lic a tio n o f the ru le in Blakely to case s on collatera l review is not required. See I ssac Herron v . State, No. W2004-02533- CCA-R28-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, N ov. 22, 2004) ( order ). Thus, no g rounds exist as an exception to the statute of limitations.

F or the r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , w e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e tr i a l c o u r td i d n o te rr i n s u m m a ri ly dismiss ing the petition for post-conviction re lief as time-ba rre d. When an opinion would have no prec edential va lue, the Court of Criminal Appea ls may aff irm the judg ment o r ac t i o n of the trial court by memorandum opinion when the judgme nt is render ed or the action take n in a proc eeding3

without a jury

and such judg ment or ac tion is not a dete rmination of guilt, and the e vidence does not preponde rate ag ainst the findi ng of t he trial judge. See Tenn. R. Ct. Crim. App. 20. We conclude that th is c a se sa tis fi e s th e c ri te ri a of Rul e 20

. Ac c or din g ly
, it is or de re d that theSta te ’s mot ion is g rante d. The judgment of the t rial court is affirme d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appea ls.

___________________________________ 

### ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE