### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 13, 200 5
LEON AR D M AY SON ET v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2001-A- 278 Steve D ozier , Judge

No. M2005- 00921-CCA -R3-P C - F iled Janu ary 6, 2006

The pe titioner, L eonar d May sonet, appe als the Da vidson CountyCriminal Court’s summ ary dis mis sa l of hi s pet ition fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f f ro m hi s c on vic tio ns fo r c arj a c kin g , a Cla ss B felony , and kidnapping , a Class C felony , and re sulting conc urre nt se ntence s of twelve y ear s in the Depa rtment of Corre ction. He claims the trial court erre d in finding his petition was time-ba rre d by the on e -y e ar s ta tut e of

lim itatio ns . H e a sse rt s th a t B lake ly v. Was hin g ton , 5 42 U. S. 2 96 , 1 24 S. Ct

. 2531 (2004), a nnounced a new rule of constit utional law re quiring retroa ctive application to his case
. We affirm the trial court’ s summary dismiss al of the pe tition. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt Aff irm ed
J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u rt, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.
L eonar d May sonet, Clifton, Tennessee , Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter ; Sophia S. L ee, A ssistant Attorn e y G e n e r al; Victor S. (Torry ) Johns on, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; an d Am y

Hunter Eise nbeck, A ssistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION
The re cord r efle cts t h at t h e petitioner ple d g uiltyon J anuary 7, 2002, to car

jacking and kidnapping and that he did not file a direc t appea l. On M arc h 17, 2005, the petitioner filed a petition for post-c onviction relief

, alleg ing that his trial counsel was ineffe ctive for failing to inform hi m of the constitutional defec ts in Te nnessee ’s presumptive sentenc ing sc heme. He claimed that ha d he be e n p ro pe rl y

inf orme d th at a ju dge’s fi nd ing s o f f a c t us e d to app ly

e nh a nc e me nt f

a c tor s to his se nte nc e s v iol a te d h is Si xth A me nd me nt rig ht to tri a l by jury , h e wo uldha ve g on e to t ri a l. H e a lso asserted that B lakely

require s retroa ctive a p plication, there by invalidating the trial court’ s enhanc ement of his sente nces. O n Marc h 18, 2005, the trial court entere d an orde r dismissing the p et i t i o n , s t at i n g,-2- Af te r r e vie w o f the pe tit ion , th e app lic able statut e s, a ndauth oriti e s, the Court finds that the petition has not been timely filed and is bar red by the one y ear

statute of limitations. Further, the g rounds for r elief stated in the petition do not f all within any

exception to the limi tation period. On appe al, the petitioner’ s claims that his petition for post-conviction relief prese nted a co l o ra b l e c l ai m , t h er eb y en t i t l i n g h i m t o t h e a p p o i n t m en to f c o u n s el an d a f u l l ev i d en t i ar y

h ea ri n g. The state c ontends that the petition is time-barr ed by the s tatute of limit ations, that Blakely does not requireretroa ctive application, and that in any event, Te nnessee ’s sentenc ing sc heme doe s not run afoul of the Six th Amendment. We ag ree with the state.
Th e Pos t- Con vic tio n Pr oc e du reAc t pr ov ide s: (a) Ex cept a s provided in subsections (b) a nd (c) , a per son in custody under a sentenc e of a

court of this state must petition for po st- c on vic tio n r e lie f u nd e r this pa rt wi thi n o ne (1 ) y e ar o f the date of the fina l action of the highe st state appellate court to which an appea l is taken o r, i f n o appeal is taken, within one (1) y ear of the date on whic h the judg ment became final, or consideration of such petition shall be barr ed. . . . (b) No c ou rt s h all have jurisdiction to consider a pe tition fil ed af ter su c h ti me un le ss: (1) The claim in the petition is based upo n a final ruling of an appellate court e stablishing a c onstitut ional rig ht that was not rec og nized as exi sting at the time of trial, if re trospective a pplication of that rig ht is required. Such pe tition m ust be filed within on e (1) y ear of the ruling of the hig hest state appel l at e co u rt or the United States supreme c ourt establishing a constitutional right that wa s not rec og nized as exi sting at the time of trial. T.C.A. § 40-30-102( a), ( b)(1) . We note t h at o u r s u preme court ha s held that Bla kely did not announcea new rule of c onstitut ional law re quiring retro ac t ive application under the Pos t- Con vic tio n Pro c e du re Ac t and that in a ny e ve nt, Te nn e sse e ’s se nte nc ing sc he me c omp lie s w ith the Six th Amendment as interpr eted by the S upreme Court in Blakely and United States v. B ooker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). State v. Gomez, 163 S.W .3d 632, 651 n.16, 661 (Tenn. 2005)

. We c on c lud e thetria l c ou rt didno t e rr

in d ism iss ing the pe tit ion . T he pe tit ion e r i s n ot en tit le d to relief

.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE