# FILED May 19, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FEBRUA RY 199 8 SESSI ON

JESSIE WILLIA M WARD, ) ) No. 03C01-9705-CC-00193 Appe llant, ) ) Rhea Coun ty vs. ) ) Honorable J. Curt is Smith, J udge STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) (Post-Convi ction)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: PRO SE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General& Reporter TIMOTHY F. BEHAN Assistant Attorney General Cordell HullBldg., Second Fl oor 425 Fifth Avenu e, North Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 J. MI CHAEL TAY LOR Distri ct Attorney General JAME S W . POP E, III Assistant Distri ct Attorney 265 3rd. Avenue, Suite 300 Dayton, TN 37321 OPINION FILED:____________________

AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20
WILLIAM B. ACREE, J R. SPECI AL JUDGE1 At the time of the convictions , the petitioner was on par ole from the State of Ohio. His parole was revoked after the convictions, and he is currently incarcerated in Ohio. The petitioner believ es that if these convictions can be set aside, then he wi ll be released from prison in Ohio.

2 (b) No cour

t shall hav

e jurisdic tion to cons ider a petition filed after such time 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 as existing at the time of trial, if retrospective application of that right is required. Such petition must be f iled within one (1) year of the ruling of the highest state appellate c ourt or the United States supreme court establishing a constitutional right

that was not recogniz

ed as existing at the time of trial; (2) The claim in the petition is based upon new scienti fic evidence establishing that such petitioner is actual ly innocent of the offense or offenses for w hich the petitioner was convicted; or OPINI ON The petition er, Jes sie W illiam W ard, ap peals as of rig ht the tria l court’s dismiss al of his pe tition for post-c onviction re lief. The p etitioner en tered a p lea of guilty to fo ur misd emea nors in 19 94. In 1995, the petitioner f iled a pet ition f or post-conv iction relief in the General Sessio ns Cou rt. 1 The petiti on was dismissed by t he General Sessions Cour t and was appe aled to this Cou rt. By order dated A ugust 28, 19 96, this Court dismissed the app eal on juri sdicti onal grounds. See Wa rd v. State (No. 03C01- 9601-CC -00015, T enn.Crim .App., at Knoxville). On September 13, 1996, t he petiti oner fil ed a petit ion for post-convi ction relief in the Cir

cuit Court

of Rhea County. The t rial cour t found that

the petit ion was ba rred by the statute of lim itations an d dism issed it.
We affirm the d ecision o f the trial court.
At the ti me the petit ioner’s convicti ons became final, the statu te of limitat ions for po st-convi ction rel ief proceedi ngs was three year s. T.C.A. §40- 30- 102 (R epeale d 1995 ). In 1995, th e legislatur e reduc ed the sta tute of limitatio ns to one year . T. C.A. §40- 30- 202 (a). The 1 995 P ost -Con vi cti on Ac t be came effective on May 10, 1995, and applies to all pet itions filed after t hat date. When the new act took effect , the petitioner’ s right t o file a petiti on for post- convicti on relief had not expir

ed. Consequently , the petitioner had one year from t he effective date of t he new act to f ile. See Carter v. S tate , 952 S.W.2d 417, 419 (Tenn. 1997). This petit ion was not f iled wit hin that y ear. Furt hermore, the petiti oner does not al lege facts which would al low him to f ile under T. C.A. §40-30- 202 (b). 2(3) The claim asserted in the petition seeks relief from a s entence that was enhanced because of a previous conviction and such conviction in the case in which the claim is asserted was not a gui lty plea with an ag reed sentence, and the previ ous conviction has subsequently been held to be invalid, in which case the petition must be filed within one (1) year of the finality of the ruling holding the previous conviction to be invalid. The petition for post- conviction rel ief is barred by the statute of l imitations, and the judgment of

the tri al court i s affirmed pursuant to Rule 2 0, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

___________________________________ WILLI AM B. A CREE, JR., SPECI AL JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

____________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE