# FILED July 28, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE ATJA CKSON JUNE SE SSION, 1997
WA LT ER E. I NGR A M, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9608-CR-00258 ) Ap pella nt, ) ) ) SHELBY COU NTY VS. ) ) HON. JA MES C. BEAS LEY, JR. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appell ee. ) (Post- Convict ion)

ON AP PEA L FROM THE J UDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF SHELBY CO UNTY
FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : W ALTER E. INGRAM, PRO SE JOHN KNOX W ALKUP P.O. Box 1050 Attor ney General and Reporter Henning, TN 38041 CLINTON J . MORGAN Assist ant Attor ney General 450 James Robertson Par kway Nashvil le, TN 37243-0493 JOHN W. PI EROTTI Dist ri ct Attor ney General LEE V. COFFEE Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney General Criminal Justi ce Complex, Suit e 301 201 PoplarStreet Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE1 See Tenn . Code A nn. § 40-30-20 6(b) (Supp. 199 6). -2- 

# OPINION

The Pe tition er, W alte r E. In gra m , ap pe als as of r ightpursuantto Rul e 3 of the Te nne sse e R ules of Ap pella te Pr oce dure from the tr ial c ou rt’s d en ial of his peti ti on for po st-co nviction relief. The Peti ti oner f il ed a pro se petition for po stconvi cti on rel iefon Apri l 10, 1996. On April 25, 1996, the t ri al courtdismis sed the peti ti on wit hout conducti ng an evi denti ary hear ing, fi nding t hat i t was bar red by the stat ute of l imitat ions. 1 W e affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

The record reveal s thatfrom 1982 to 1984, the Pet it ioner amassed seven convi cti ons forrobbery wi th a deadl y weapon and one con vi cti on for se conddegree mu rder . At a b ifurca ted tria l on o ne o f the char ges forrobbery wi th a de ad lyweapon, t he Peti ti oner was al so found to be an habi tual cri minal and was sentenced to l if e impri sonment. Al though t he record is s omewhat un cle ar, it app ears thatthe habi tual cri minal c onvi cti on occurred in Sept ember or November of1983. Bot h the conv ict ion and s entence were aff ir med upon direc t app eal to this Co urt. See State v. Walter Eugene Ingram , C.C. A. No. 147 , She lby C oun ty (Ten n. Crim . App., Ja ckso n, June 26, 19 85).

Accordi ng to t he Peti ti oner, he escaped from the Tennessee Depart ment ofCorrect ion i n 1987. He was cap ture d in Lo uis ian a in 19 88 an d a pp are ntly was convi cted of attempted murder there. After

being i mpriso ned in t he Louisi ana Sta te Pe nite ntia ry for a p erio d of ti me, he was ret urned t o the Tennessee Department ofCorrect ion i n Februaryof 1996.2In hi s bri ef, the Pet it ioner clai ms that he or igi nall y mail ed his peti ti on for p ost-co nvi cti on rel ief from the Loui siana State Peni tent iary t o the Shel by County Court Clerk on March 2 , 1989. In f act, the peti ti on fi led on Apri l 10, 1996, i s apparent ly a copyof t he ori ginalpeti ti on refer red t o by t he Peti ti oner and contai ns a cert if icat e of serv ice and an affi davi t ofindi gency da ted i n March and February of 19 89 , re sp ec tive ly. T he re is n oth ing in th e re co rd wh ich ind ica tes tha t the orig ina l pe tition alle ge dly m ailed i n 1989 w as ever rece ived or fil ed by the Shelby County Court Clerk . Instead, the record clear ly refl ects t hat t he peti ti on actual ly conside red by

the t ri al court i n the case at bar was marked as havi ng been fi led on Apri l 10, 1996. -3- The peti ti on for

post- convi cti on rel iefconsi dered by the t ri al court i n t he
case sub judice was fi led on Apri l 10, 1996. 2 The peti ti on all eged thatseveral of the pri or conv ict ions us ed to f orm the basi s for the Peti ti oner’ s habit ual cr iminal convi cti on were i nv alid . Th e ch allen ged con victions were all bas ed o n gu ilty pleas. Th e P et i t i on eras se r t ed t ha t t he t r i al co urt di d n otad vi se hi m o f hi s con stitution al righ ts before he pleaded guil ty, thereby rende ri ng his g uil ty p leas inv oluntary. Because the convi cti ons used t o for m the basi s for the h abit ua l cri minal fi nding were al legedl y based on i nvol untary gui lty pl eas, t he Peti toner argued tha t his habit ual cr iminal convi cti on and a ccom pan ying life senten ce we re inv ali d. The tri al court f ound thatthe pet it ion was bar red by the st atut e of li mitat ions and dismis sed itwit houtconducti ng an evi denti ary hear ing. Itis f rom the tr ial court’ s order of di smissal thatthe Petit ioner appeals.

On ap pe al, the Pet it ioner contends thatthe t ri al courterred in f indi ng that his pet it ion f or post -convi cti on rel iefwas barre d by t he st at ut e ofli mit at io ns. At the ti me the Peti ti oner’ s convi cti ons became fi nal, a pri soner coul d peti ti on for post- convi cti on rel ief“atany t ime aft er he ha [d] e xha us ted his appell ate remedies and before the sent ence ha[d] expi red orha[d] been ful lysati sfi ed.”Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102 (1982) . I n 1986, t his se c ti on w as a m end ed to prov ide th at a “pri sonerin cus tody under sent ence of a courtofthis state must petition for po stconvi cti on rel iefunderthi s chapter wit hin t hree ( 3) yearsof t he date ofthe f inal acti on of t he higheststat e appell ate court t o which an appeal i s taken or-4-

considerati on of suc h pe titi on shall be barred.”Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-30- 102 (1990 ). The three- year l imit ati ons peri od began to r un for the Pet it ioner

on the effective date ofthe amended prov isi on, Jul y 1, 1986. See State v. Mul li ns , 767 S.W .2d 668, 669 (Tenn. Cri m. App. 1988) . The expi rat ion ofth e three-year statu te of l imit ati ons in t he Peti ti oner’ s case occur red on Jul y 1, 1989. As we
s t ated above, the pet it ion cons idered by t he tr ial courtin t he presentcase was not f il ed unti l Apri l 10, 1996.

Ofcours e, the ne w Po st-Con viction Proc edu re Act g overn s t his pet it ion and all petition s filed a fter M ay 10 , 199 5. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30 -201 et seq. (Supp. 1996). This Actprovi des, i n pert inentpart , t hat “ notwi thst anding any o therprovi sion of

thi s partto t he contrary, any person havi ng groun d fo r relie f recogni zed un de r this part shal l have at leastone (1) yea r from Ma y 10, 1 995 , to file a peti ti on or a moti on to reopen a peti ti on underthis part.” Compiler ’s Not es to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 201 (Su pp. 1 996 ) (referr ing to Acts 1995, ch. 207, § 3). Ano ther pa nel of this C ourt has hel d, wi th one member dissent ing, thatthe
new Post- Convict ion Procedure Actprovi des “a one-year wi ndow” during which each an d e very de fen da nt m ay file a pe tition. See Arn old C arter v. S tate , C.C. A. No. 03C01-9509-CC-0027 0, Mo nro e C ou nty (T en n. C rim . Ap p., K no xville, J uly 11, 199 6), perm . to appeal granted (Tenn. 1996) . The Carter court held t hat t he one-year

window i s avai labl e even i f t he peti ti on would h a ve been l ong ago barr ed b y the th ree- yea r statu te pro vided und er the prev ious act.

Otherpanels of t his Court hav e fol lowed t he reasoni ng oft he diss en t in Carter and h eld that the 1995 Act did n ot provide previous ly-barred p etitioners wit h a new one-y earperi od from May 10, 1995 duri ng which t hey coul d peti ti on-5-

forpost- convi cti on relief. See Do yle C arter v. S tate , C. C.A. No. 01C0 1- 951 1- CC00398, Da vidso n C oun ty (Te nn. C rim. A pp., N ash ville, Feb . 12, 1 997 ); Eri c C. Pendlet on v. State , C. C.A. No. 01C01-9604- CR-00158, Davi dson County (Tenn. Cr i m. Ap p., N ash ville, Feb . 12, 1 997 ); W allace Bu tler v. Ric ky Bel l, W arden , C.C. A. No. 02 C01 - 95 10 - CC- 00 29 7, Fa ye t t e Co un t y ( Ten n. Cr i m. App., Jackson, No v. 19, 1 996 ); Joh nny L. Bu tler v. S t ate , C.C. A. No. 02C01-9 509-CR-00289, ShelbyCo unty (T enn . Crim . App ., Jack son , De c. 2, 19 96); Stephe n Ko prowski
v. State , C.C .A. No . 0 3C0 1- 95 11 - CC- 00 36 5, An de r so n Co un t y ( Ten n. Cr i m. Ap p., Knox ville, Jan . 28, 1 997 ); Ste ve K opro wsk i v. State , C.C. A. No. 03C01- 951 1-CR -0037 8, Kno x Cou nty (Te nn. C rim. Ap p., Kno xville, Jan. 28, 199 7).

We choose t o fol low t he reasoni ng set fort h i n the Carter disse nt. In our vi ew, the one- year wi ndow provi ded by t he lan gu ag e o f the ne w A ct is a pp licab le
on lyto t hose peti ti oners who were notalready barred bythe previ ous stat ute of li mitat ions at the ti me the new Act t ook eff ect. Thus, i f t he previ ous three-year statu te of l imit ati ons had no t ex pi r ed on a p et i t i on eratt he t i me the new Acttook effec t, he or she woul d have one y ear f rom the effect iv e date ofthe st atut e, May 10, 1995, t o fi le f or post -convi cti on relie f. Th is approach i s in ac cordance wi th t he gen eral teno r of the en tire Act as w ell as its legislative history.

In the cas e sub judice , t he record i ndicates thatthe Pet it ioner ’s habi tual cri minal convi cti on became fi nal in June of 19 85. T he p reviou s thre e-ye ar sta tute ofli mitat ions began to r un for the Pet it ioner

on July 1, 19 86 an d e xpire d o n Ju ly 1, 1989. As a result , t he Peti ti oner was al ready bar red bythe previ ous stat ute of lim it ati ons on th e da te the new Act to ok e ffect, M ay 10 , 199 5. In a dditi on, th e Peti ti onerhas not d emonstrat ed thathe fi ts wi thi n an except ion t o the st atut e of-6-

li mitati ons. See Tenn. Cod e An n. § 40 -30-20 2(b),(c) (Su pp. 19 96). Ac cording ly, the tr ial courtdid noterr in f indi ng thatthe pet it ion was bar red b y th e stat ute of li mitati ons.

Forthe reasons setforth i n the di scussi on above, we concl ude thatthe t ri al court did not err in di smissi ng the pet it ion f or post -convi cti on relief. W e there fore affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

____________________________________ DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ PAULG. SUMME RS, JUD GE

___________________________________ JOE G. RI LEY , JUD GE