# FILED August 7, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JULY SESSION, 1998
RICKIE D. REESE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9707- CC-00314 ) Appe llant, ) ) ) BEDFORD COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. CHARLES LEE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appe llant. ) (Post-Co nviction Re lief)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : RICKIE D. REESE JOHN KNOX WALKUP Pro Se Attorney Generaland Reporter SCCC - Apollo A - 218 P. O. Box 279 CLINTON J. MORGAN Clifton, TN 38425-5346 Coun sel for the S tate 425 Fifth Avenu e North Nashvill e, TN 37243-0493 MIKE M CCOWN Distri ct Attor ney General ROBERT CRIGLER Assistant District Attorn ey One Public Square, Ste. 100 Shelbyvil le, TN 37160

ORDER FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED PURSU ANT TO RU LE 20 JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE- 2
- 

## ORDER Appellant

Rickie D. Reese pl eaded guilt y to one count of aggravated rape. He was sentenced as a Range I standard offender to fifteen years incar ceration with the Tennessee Department of Correctio n. Appellant presents t he followi ng issue for our

conside rati on on this ap peal: w hethe r the trial c ourt er red in dismiss ing App ellant's pe tition for post-c onviction re lief. After a review of

the record, we affirm the judgmen t of the t rial court pursuant to Cour

t of Cri minal Appeals Rule20. Appe lla nt filed his pro sepetition for post-conviction re lief in the Bedford Coun ty Circuit Court on May 30, 1997. On Jul y 7, 1997, t he trialcourt dis missed Appe llant's pet it ion , de termini ng t hat thepet it ion was ti me barred and that it failed to state a cl aim upon w hic h relief could be granted. In hi s petiti on, Appellant allegesthat he has been i ncarcerated f or five years and four teen days . He contends, inter alia , that he is being illegally restrai ned beyond the lawful pe riod of incarcera tion beca use the Tenn essee Board of Paroles denie d his re lease until March 2000. He furthe r claims th at the trial cou rt neglecte d to apprise hi m that the plea agreement coul d be violated at a later date and that the s tipu lated conditi on as to h is thirt y percent r

elease eli gibility date was di scretionar y and not manda tory. Prior to the adopt ion of therecent Post- Convicti on Procedure Act, petiti ons like the presen t one had to b e filed within t hree years of the date of

the final action of the highest state appell ate court t o which an appeal was taken. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-1 02 (1995, Repl. ). However, the new Post-Convi ction Procedu re Act, which t ook effect

on May 10, 19 95, su bseq uently shortened the three-year

statut e of limi tations to one year. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq. (Supp. 1996). Appellant' s statut e of li mitations for the f ilingof a peti tion for- 3
- post-convi ction relief

began to run i n 1992, the year in which he avers th at he pleaded guilty. Under either the old or th e new P ost-Co nviction P rocedu re Act, Appe llant's pet it ion is ti me barred because hefiled the petit ion fiv e years after the date of his conviction. W e conclude that the trial court properl y dismissed the May 30, 1997 petition as being barr ed by the statute of l imitations. Acco rdingly , we affi rm the tri al court' s judgment pursuant to Court of Crimina l Appea ls Rule 2 0.

____________________________________ JERRY L . SMI TH, J UDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

___________________________________ DAVID G. HAY ES, J UDGE