# FILED
Au gust 8, 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 WILL IE JA CKSON, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9606-CR-00195 ) Ap pella nt, ) ) ) SHELBY COU NTY VS. ) ) HON. L. T. LAFFERTY 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 : D. TYLER KELLY JOHN KNOX W ALKUP P. O. Box 98 Attor ney General and Reporter Jackson, TN 38302 DE BO RA H A . TU LLIS Assist ant Attor ney General 450 James Robertson Par kway Nashvil le, TN 37243 JOHN W. PI EROTTI Dist ri ct Attor ney General KARE N COOK 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 Peti ti oner, W il li e Jackson, appeals as of r ightpursuantto Rul e 3 of t he Tennessee Rules of Appellat e Procedure from the tr ial co urt ’s deni al o f 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 15, 1996. On April 21, 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.
On July18, 1977, the Pet it ioner was convi cted ofbank robb ery in t he United Stat es Dist ri ct Courtforthe Western Dist ri ct ofTennessee. H e was sentenced to th irt y years impri sonment for thatoff ense. He was paroled on Feb ruary 28, 1985, wit h eightthousand on e hundred ei ghty- fourdays remaining to be ser ved on his fe de ral s en ten ce . On Ap ril 25 , 19 90 , in Shelby Cou nty Criminal Cou rt, he was convicted upon guilty pleas of five co unts of rob bery with a dead ly w eap on. H e wa s sen tence d to an effective term of twenty ye ar s impri sonment with th e T enn ess ee D epa rtme nt of C orre ction
. On May 16, 1990, a federal war rantwas iss ued for the Pet it ioner

on g rounds t hat he had v iol ated a con ditio n o f his parol e. Hi s parol e was revoked on June 21, 1995, and he was ret urned t o federal cus tody on July20, 1995.
On April 15, 1996, the Pet it ioner fi led a pet it ion for p ost- convi cti on rel ief which is t he subject ofthe cas e sub judice . I n the pet it ion, he argued t hat he was denied the effect iv e assi stance of counsel at hi s guil ty p lea proceeding and that-3-

both the trial court an d h is co un se l failed to in form him tha t his con victio ns cou ld lat erbe used as a bas is for en han cem ent. The tri al court f ound thatthe pet it ion was barre d by the st atut e of l imit ati ons and di smissed i t wi thoutconducti ng an eviden tiaryheari ng. I t i s from the tr ial court ’s order ofdismis sal t hat t he Petiti oner appeals.
On appeal, the Pet it ioner contends thatthe t ri al court er red i n fi nding that his peti ti on for post -convict ion rel ief was barred by the stat ute of l imitat ions. At the tim e th e P etitio ne r’s c on victio ns be ca m e fin al, th e stat ute ofli mitat ions ap plica ble to post -convi cti on proceedi ngs was three years . Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-10 2 (repe aled 1995) . The expi rat ion ofthe th ree- yea r statu te of l imit ati ons in the Pet it ioner ’s cas e occurred in 1993. As we stat ed ab ove, the present peti ti on was not f il ed unti l Apri l of1996.
Of cou rse, the new Post -Convi cti on Procedur e Act gov erns t his pet it ion and all petition s filed a fter M ay 10 , 199 5. See Tenn. Code An n. § 40-30- 201 et seq. (Supp. 1996). This Actprovi des, i n pert inentpart , t hat “ notwi thst anding any otherprovi sion of

this pa rt t o the cont rary , anyperson hav ing ground for rel ief recogni zed unde r this part sha ll have at l east one ( 1) year from Ma y 10, 1 995 , to file a petition or a m otion to reo pen a petition un der this pa rt.” Compiler ’s Not es to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 201 (Supp. 1996) ( ref erri ng to Act s 1995, ch. 207, § 3). The Petit ioner

argues t hat t he ter ms of the new Post- Convict ion Proce dure Ac t all owed him one year from May 10, 1995, to f il e his pe ti ti on and, t hu s, hi s April 1996 peti ti on was ti mely f il ed.-4- We recogni ze thatanother panel ofthis Cou rthas hel d, wi th one member dissent ing, thatthe new Post -Convi cti on Procedur e Act provi des “a one- year wind ow” during which each and every def endantma y file a pe tition. See Arn old Carter v. State , C.C. A. No. 03 C01 - 95 09 - CC- 00 27 0, Mo nroe Cou nty ( Ten n. Cr i m. Ap p., Kn oxville, Ju ly 11, 1 996 ), perm. t o a p peal granted (Tenn. 1996) . The Carter courtheld t hat t he one-ye ar wi ndow is avail able ev en ifthe pe tition wo uld have been long ago barr ed bythe t hree-y ear st atut e provi ded under t he previ ous act.
Otherpanels of t his Court hav e fol lowed th e re as on ing of th e d isse nt in Carterand h eld that the 1995 Act did n ot provide previous ly-barred p etitioners wit h a new one-year

peri od from May 10, 1995 duri ng which t hey coul d peti ti on forpos t-con viction re lief. See Do yle Carte r v. State , 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 alla ce Bu tler v. R icky Be ll, Wa r den , 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. Sta te , C.C. A. No. 02C01-9509-CR-00289, Sh elb y Co unty (T enn . Crim . App ., Jack son , De c. 2, 19 96); Stephen Koprowski v. State , C .C. A. No. 03C0 1- 951 1- CC-0 036 5, And er son Co unty ( Ten n. Cr i m. Ap p., Kn oxville, 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 in t he Carterdis se nt. In our vi ew, the one- yearwindow provi ded bythe lan gu ag e o f the ne w A ct is a pp licab le on lyto those petitioners who were notalready barred by t he previ ous stat ute of-5-

li mitat ions at th e tim e th e n ew Ac t too k ef fec t. Th us , if the pre vio us t hree-y ear statu te of l imit ati ons had notex 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 j udice , t he record indi cates t hat t he Peti ti oner was convi cted an d sentence d in Apr il of 1990. The previ ous three-year stat ute of li mitat ions expi red for t he Peti ti oner i n Apri l of1993. As a result , t he Peti ti oner was already barred by t he previ ous stat ute ofli mitat ions on the dat e the new Act tookeffec t, May 10, 1995. I n addit ion, the Pet it ioner has not d emonstrat ed that he fi ts wit hin an excepti on to the st atute of li mitati ons. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-30-20 2(b) and -202( c) ( Supp. 1996 ). Accord ingly, the trial court did no t err in findi ng that t he petit ion was barred by t he statute ofli mitati ons.
Forthe reasons setforth i n the di scussi on above, we concl ude thatthe t ri al court did not er r i n dismi ssing the pet it ion for post-co nviction relief. W e there fore affirm the jud gm ent o f the trial c ourt.

____________________________________ DAVI D H. WELLES, JUD GE-6-

CONCUR:

___________________________________ PAULG. SUMME RS, JUD GE

___________________________________ JOE G. RI LEY , JUD GE