# FILED September 23, 1997 Cecil Crowson, Jr . App ellate C ou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRI MINAL APPEA LS OF TENNESSEE ATJA CKSON MAY SES SION, 1997

BOBBY LEE JEFFRI ES, ) C. C.A. NO. 02C01-9607-CR-00216 ) Ap pella nt, ) ) SHELBY COUNTY ) V. ) ) HON. JOSE PH B. DA I LEY, JUDGE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appell ee. ) (POS T-C ON VIC TIO N)

FOR THE APP ELLA NT : FOR THE APPELLEE : BOB BY LEE JE FFRIES, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP Inmate #84191 Attor ney General & Reporter Co ld Cree k Co rrectional F acility P.O. Box 1000 DEBORAH A. TULLI S Henning, TN 38041-1000 Assist ant Attor ney General 2nd Floor , Cordel l Hul l Bui ldi ng 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvil le, TN 37243 JOHN W . PI EROTTI Dist ri ct Attor ney General DAVI D HENRY Assist ant Di str ictAtto rney General 201 PoplarAvenue, St e. 301 Memphis, TN 38103
OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFI RMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUD GE-2- 

# OPINION

The Peti ti oner, Bobby Lee Jeff ri es, appeal s the order ofthe Shel byCo unty Criminal Court di smissing his pro sepeti ti on for post- convi cti on rel ief . The t ri al court found t hat hi s peti ti on was fi led outside t he stat ute ofli mitat ions, and fai led to sta te a claim up on wh ich reli ef co uld be granted. In t his appeal , Pet it ioner rai ses numerous issue s which can col lect iv elybe summarized as cha ll enging t he tri al cou rt’ s rul ing t hat t he peti ti on for post- convi cti on rel iefis t ime-bar red. The Pe tition er’s prim ary a rgum ent is th at th e Po st-C onvi cti on Procedur e Act t hat be ca me eff ect i ve Ma y 10 , 19 95 , gi ve s h i m a new-one ye ar t ime peri od in which to fi le a Pet it ion for Po st-C onv iction R elief. After a review of the reco rd, we a ffirm the tria l cou rt’s de nial of p ost-c onv iction re lief.
On November 28, 1984, Pet it ioner was convi cted bya jury oftwo c oun ts ofarmed robbe ry, was foun d to b e a h abitu al crim inal, an d wa s se nten ced to life imp rison m ent. Th is Court co nfi rmed Peti ti oner’ s convi cti on on October9, 1985. The Tennessee Supreme Court deni ed Peti ti oner’ s appli cati on for perm ission to app eal o n Ja nua ry 21 , 198 6.

On June 7, 1989, the United States Dist rictCourt for t he W estern Dist rict ofTennessee grant ed Peti ti oner’ s peti ti on for habeas corpu s rel iefas to hi s 1984 habit ual crim inal co nviction . His life sentence as a habit ual cr iminal was vacat ed and he was resent enced b y t he t ri al c ourtto two fi ft een (15) year s entences to be serve d co ncu rren tly for the two a rm ed ro bbe ry con victions
. This c ourt aff ir med the t ri al court’ s judgment on February27, 1991.-3- On May 1, 1996, Peti ti oner f il ed this pe tition for p ost-c onv iction re lief with the ShelbyCo unty tria l cou rt. The tri al court subseque ntl y di smissed t he peti ti on because itwas fi led outside t he stat ute ofli mitat ions and faile d to sta te a claim upo n wh ich re lief cou ld be gran ted.

The record support s the t ri al court ’s f indi ng thatthe pet it ion is t ime- bar red. In Ju ly 198 6, the Te nne sse e Le gislatu re en acte d a th ree- yea r statu te o f li mitat ions on post-convi ction pet iti ons. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102 (r epealed 1995) ; se e a ls o Pa ssa rella v. S tate , 891 S .W .2d 61 9, 624 (Ten n. Crim . App.), pe r m. to ap pe al d enied , ( Tenn. Nov. 28, 1994) . Pet it ioner ’s con vi cti ons and sentence were effect iv e on January21, 1986 when t he Supreme Court deni ed his ap pli cati on forpermissi on to appeal . Thi s would be the “fi nal act ion ofthe higheststat e appe ll ate cou rt
. . . . ” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 102 (r epealed 199 5). Under the 1986 stat ute, Peti ti oner had t hree y e ars fro m July 1 , 198 6, to file a cogni zab l e clai m for post -convi cti on rel iefof t he 1984 convi cti ons. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-102 ( repea le d 1 99 5). T he refo re, in ord er to pre vail, Peti ti one rmust ha ve f il ed a peti ti on by Jul y 1, 1989 to toll the r unning ofthe stat ute. Furthermore, even i f thi s Court’s affir mance ofPeti ti oner’ s resent encing on February27, 1991 i s deemed to b e the fi nal act ion ofthi s case, Peti ti oner wo uld ha ve h ad to file his p etitio n b y Fe bru ary 2 7, 1 99 4. P etitio ne r did no t file h is peti ti on forpost co nvi cti on rel iefunti l May 1, 1996, wel l pastthe three -yea r statu te ofli mitat ions under

eit hervi ew. Thus, the Pet it ioner is bar red f rom seeking pos tconvict ion rel ief for the 1984 convict ions.

T he Tennessee Sup r eme Co urt rec en tly rej ected Pe tition er’s argument tha t the new Post- Convict ion Procedure Act , effect iv e M ay 10, 1995, grants an-4-

addit ional one-year

pe riod , un til May 10, 1996 , t o fi le a pos t-c onvi cti on peti ti on. Carter v. State , __S.W .2d__ , No. 03 -S-01 -9612 -CR -0011 7, Mo nroe C oun ty, (Te nn., at Kn oxville, S ept. 8 , 199 7); see al so T enn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 201 et seq . (Supp. 19 96 ). In th at c as e, o ur s up rem e co urt h eld thatthe new act“i s not int ended to revive clai ms that were barred by t he previous st atute of li mitati ons. We agree wi th t he vi ew thatthe st atut e was int ended t o rest ri ct t he ti me and opp ortun ityto se ek p ost-c onv iction re lief. Clearl y, t his pur pose isnot ser ved by a sta tut oryconst ruct ion tha t al lowsaddit ional ti me and oppo rtunity for petitioners whose clai ms are already barred by t he pri or st atut e o f limitations.” Carter , __S.W .2d__, No. 03-S- 01-9612- CR-00117, sl ip op. at7. The refore, “pe titioners forwho m the st atut e of l imit ati ons expi red pr iorto t he eff ecti ve dat e of t he new Ac t, i.e., May 10, 1995 , do nothave an addi ti onal y earin whi ch to f il e peti ti ons for post-co nviction relief.” Id . at2.

IfPeti ti oner had anyclai ms he wished t o presentin a pos t-c on vic ti on cause of acti on, t hey expi red on Jul y 1, 1989 for the 1984 convi cti ons, or in t he alt erna ti ve, on February 27, 1994. Aftereit her ofthose dat es, Pet it ioner no longer had a cl aim under ei therthe ol d or t he new act. Under the author ity ci ted abo ve, the 199 5 A ct will no t revive a claim whic h is alre ady time -bar red.

Even if the pe tition wa s no t ba rred by th e st atu te o f lim it ation s, th e so le subs tantive issue pres ente d by P etitione r wou ld be witho ut m erit. In t he present pet it ion, Peti ti oner ar gues thatthe “ reasonabl e doubt”jury i nstr ucti on giv en by t he tri al cou rt violated his co nstituti onal r igh ts under the Fi ft h, Si xth, Eight h, and Fo urte enth Am end me nts to the U nited S tates C onstitution. O ur cou rts have-5-

rep ea ted lyheld t hat t he jury i nstr ucti on cha ll en ge d b y Pe tition er is a va lid inst ruct ion on reas ona ble d oub t. Nich ols v. S tate , 877 S. W .2d 722, 734 (Tenn. 199 4); State v. Sexton , 917 S. W.2d 26 3, 26 6 (Ten n. Cr i m. Ap p. 19 95); Petty john
v. State , 885 S.W .2d 3 64, 3 66 (T enn . Crim . App . 199 4); St ate v . Hall ock , 875 S.W .2d 2 85, 2 94 (T enn . Crim . App . 199 3).

Acc ordingly, we a ff ir m the judgmentof t he tr ial courtand hold thatthe Pe tition er’s petition for po st-co nviction relief is ti m e-b arre d b y the ap plica ble three -yea r statu te of lim itations und er the 198 6 A ct.

____________________________________ THO MAS T. W OOD ALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R . WA DE, Judge

___________________________________ JOHN H . PEAY, Judge