### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT NASHVILLE

LE SL IE LA M ON T C OL EM A N , P R O S E v
. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 91-S-677 J. Randall Wyatt, Judge

No. M2003- 01755-CCA -R3-P C - F iled October 13, 2004

Th e Pe tit ion e r, L e sli e L a mon t Co le ma n, app e a ls the tr ia l c ou rt ' s d ism iss a l of his pe tit ion fo r p os t
co n v i ct i o n re l i ef

. T h e S t at e h as fi l ed a m o t i o n re q u es t i n g t h at t h i s C o u rt af fi rm t h e t ri al co u rt 's denial of r elief pur suant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The Petitioner filed his petition out side the statute of limitations. Accor dingly , the State' s motion i s g rante d, and the judgme nt of the trial court is affirmed.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Affirm ed P ursuan t to Rule 20, Rules of th e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

R OB E R T W. W EDEMEYER , J

. , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e c o u r t , i n w h i c h D A V ID H. WEL LES, J ., a ndJERRY L. SMI TH, J., j oined.

L eslie L amont Coleman, pro se.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; E liz abeth T. Ry an, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION

This matter is befor e the c ourt upon motion of the appellee , the State of Te nnessee , to affirm the judg ment in this case pursua nt to Rul e 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner is appea ling the trial court' s dismiss al of his third petition for post-convic tion relief. On October 17, 1991, the petitioner pled g uilty to f elony murder and espec ially ag g ravated robbery . The tr ia l c ou rt imp os e d a

lif e se nte nc e fo r the mur de r c on vic tio n a ndfi ft e e n y e ars fo r the e sp e c ia lly
a g g ra va te d r ob be ry

c on vic tio n, to b e se rv e d c on c ur re ntl y . Pe tit ion e r d id n ot a pp e a l th e jud g me nt. On Octobe r 1, 1992, petitioner filed a petiti on for post-conviction relief, but it was w ithdrawn prior to a hea ring on the m erits. On Aug ust 15, 1995, petitioner filed a se cond petition for post-c onviction relief , which wa s dismis sed by the trial court as time barr ed. This court affirmed the dismissal on appea l. L eslie L amont Coleman, No. 01C01-9605-CR-00203, 1997 WL 254237 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville May

16, 1997). Petitioner filed the instant petition for post-c onviction relief, his thirdsuch petition, on May 29, 2003. The trial court dismiss ed the petition a s being time ba rre d by the statute of limitations.

Tenne ssee C o d e A n n o ta

te d Se ction 40-30-102( a) pr ovides that a pe tition for post-conviction relief must be filed within one y ear from final judgme nt. The appellant filed hi s petition well bey ond the tim e a llo we d b y

the statut e , a ndno ne of the e nu me rate d exce pti on s to th is t ime lim it a pp ly in this
case

. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102( b). Unde r the Post-Conviction ProcedureAct, exceptions to the statute of limitations are explicitlyset forth, i.e., (1) c laims based upon a n ew r ule of constitutional law applicable to a petitioner' s case , (2) c lai m s based upon ne w scientific e vidence showing innocenc e, and (3) claims based upon sente nces tha t were enhanc ed bec ause of a pre vious conviction and the pr evious conviction wa s subsequently found t o be il leg al. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-102( b)(1) -(3) (2003 Repl.). Petitioner has f ailed to assert one of these e x ceptions for tolling the statute. He cites no new constitut ional rule, re fer s to no new scientific evidenc e, and ma kes no claim that an ear lier convic tion has been ove rturned. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-106(g ) (2003 Re pl. ). Thu s, no g ro un ds e xist a s a n e xce pti on to the statut e of lim itatio ns . M or e ov e r, the Pos tCon vic tio n Pr oc e du reAc t do e s n ot c on te mpl a te the fi lin g of su c c e ssi ve pe tit ion s. Th e fi lin g of on ly one petition for post-conviction relief attacking a sing le judg ment is contemplated by Tenne ssee Code Annotated Sec tion 40-30-102(c ).

Acc ording ly , the state' s motion i s here by g rante d. The judg ment is affirme d in acc ordanc e with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Bec ause the appellant is indige nt, costs are taxed to the state.

____________________________________ ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J UDGE