### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 5, 200 5
PA TRIC K S. RILE Y v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2001-E-2085 Seth Nor m an, Jud ge

No. M2004- 01726-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Augu st 9, 2005

On May 24, 2004, the petitioner, Patrick S. Riley , filed a pe tition for post-conviction re l i ef that challeng ed his J an u ary

11, 2002 conviction of a g g ravated burg lary . The post-c onviction court dismiss ed the pe tition as being b ar re d by the statute of limitations set forth in Tennesse e Code Annotated section 40-30-102( a) (2003). The petiti oner now appea ls. W e af firm the dismissal of the petition.
Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; J udgm e nt of t he Cr im ina l C our t i s A ffirm e d.
J A M ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D H. W EL L ES and J.C. M C LIN , J J ., joined. Patrick S. Riley , Appellant, Pro Se

. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l & Re po rt e r; Jenn if e r L

. B le ds oe , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. J ohnson, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and D an Ha mm, Assist ant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the Appellee , State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION
The re cord refle cts that th e p et i t i o n er ’s j u d gm en to f c o n v i ct i o n o f a ggra v at ed b urg lary was e ntere d in the Davidson County Criminal Court on J anuary 11, 2002. His resulting probation wa s r e vo ke d b y

or de r e nte re d July

9, 20 03 , a ndthe c ou rt

pla c e d th e pe tit ion e r o n c ommun ity
corr ections on t h at d at e. The community corr ections plac ement wa s revoke d by order enter ed Oc tob e r 1 , 2 00 3. Sub se qu e ntl y , th e pe tit ion e r m ov e d f or a “ su sp e nd e d s e nt ence, ” a ndapp are ntl y the trial court denied the motion by order enter ed on May

3, 2004. The post-c onviction petition was filed on May

24, 2004. After

the post-conviction court dismiss ed the petition as being time-barr ed, the pe tit ion e r f

ile d a tim e ly no tic e of app e a l.
Th e pe tit ionfo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f f ro m th e pe tit io ner ’s convic tion , which the prese nt pe tition appe ars to be , is ba rre d by the provisions of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40--2-

30-102(a ) (2003)

. To be timely , when no a ppeal f rom the convic tion was filed, the pe tition m ust be filed within one y ear

of the date on which the judg ment became final. Id. Th e pe tit ion e r f ile d h is petition more than two y ear s after his guilty -plea ded convic tion judgment was en tere d. Thus, the claim for post-c onviction relief f rom the convic tion is barre d. Having said that, we acknow ledg e “that a petitioner may challeng e the r evocation of a communi t y corr ections sentenc e in a post-c onviction proce eding .” Se e Car pe nte r v . S tate , 136 S.W. 3d60 8, 61 2- 23 (T e nn . 2 00 4) . We ha ve re vie we d th e pe tit ionin this c a se to a sse ss w he the r i t may be fairly viewed a s an attac k upon the community c orrections revoc ation

. W e n o te that the pe tit ionwa s fi le d wi thi n on e y e ar of the Oc tob e r 1 , 2 00 3 r e vo c a tio n o f the pe tit ion e r’ s c ommun ity
c or re c tio ns pla c e me nt.

Th e fo rm pe tit ion , inc lud ing its le ng thy a tta c hme nt, is dif fi c ult to ch ara c te ri ze. Som e statements containe d there in would support a con c lu s io nth at t h ep e ti ti o ner is cha lleng ing his orig inal conviction on the g rounds that his plea ag ree ment was not honor ed, and other stateme nts sugg est that the petitioner soug ht to challeng e the trial court’s May 3, 2004 denial of a

motion for a suspende d sentenc e. Most of the leng thy , hand-w ritten att ac h m en t to the petition addresse s the petitioner’s g ri e va nc e s c on c e rn ing the tr e a tme nt h e re c e ive d at th e ha nd s o f the dr ug court sta ff du ri ng his
c ommun ity

c or re c tio ns re ha

bil itatio n v ia th e dr

ug c ou rt pr og ram. T he re c ou nti ng of the se experience s and g rieva nces may be fairly viewed a s the petit ioner’s defense to the char g e of violation of his community

corr ections plac ement that culminated in the O ctober , 2003 revoc ation.
S u ch a c h ar i t ab l e v i e w o f t h e p et i t i o n , h o we v er , av ai l s th e p et i t i o n ern o t h i n g. Al tho ug h h e a sse rt s th a t th e tr e a tme nt h e re c e ive d b y the re ha

bil itatio n s ta ff

vio la te d h is constitutio n al ri gh ts of due proc ess and e qual protec tion, we discer n no claim that the revoc ation itself is constituti onally

infirm. Post-conviction relief is onlyavailable when the c halleng ed ac tion is “ v o id o r v o id ab le b e c au s e o f th e ab r id g me n t o f a n y r ig h t g u ar a n te e d b y th e Co n s ti tution of Tenne ssee or

the Constitut ion of the United States.” T enn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-103 (2003)

. Thus, even if

we we re to view the peti t i o n as a challeng e to the Oc tober, 2003 revoc ation order , we c onclude that t h e petiti on fails to state a c olorable c laim for post-convic tion relie f. “If t h e facts alleg ed [in the post-conviction petition] , taken a s true fail to show that the petitioner is entitled to relief . . . , the petition shall be dismis sed.” Id . § 40-30-106( f).

Acc ording ly , the dismissal of the petition is affirmed.

___________________________________ J AMES CURW OOD WI TT, J R., J UDGE