### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs O ct obe r 7, 200 8
GER ALD WAY NE CA RTE R v. STA TE OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forMadison Cou nty Nos. C-07- 394, C-08-24 R oy Morgan, Judge

No. W2008-00652-C CA-R 3-PC - Filed November13, 2008

In this consolidated appe al, the petitioner, Ge ra ld Wayne Carter , challenge s the circ uit court’s summary dismissal of his petiti ons for both post-convic tion relief and writ of er ror c oram nobis. The circ uit court dismissed the petitions, finding t hat the petitioner ha d filed outsi d e t h e s tatute of lim itatio ns pe ri od . A ft e r r e vie w, we a ff irm th e jud gme nts of

thec ou rt

. Tenn. R. App . P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgments of the Circ uit Court Aff irme d

J. C. M C L IN , J., delivere d the opinion of the co u rt , i n which D AVI D H. W ELL ES and T H O M A S T. W OOD ALL , JJ., joined.

Ge ra ld W a yn e Cart e r, Pr o Se , Fo rr e st C ity FCC- Me d, For re st C ity , A rk a ns a s.
Rob e rt E. Coo pe r, Jr ., Attorne y G e ne ra l a ndR e p o r t e r ; D av i d H

. F i n d l e y, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y G e ne ra l; James G. W oodall, District Attorney Ge nera l; and Al fre d Lynn Earls, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee

. OP IN ION

I. Proce dural Hi story

This case i n v o lves the summary dismissal of the petitioner’ s separ ate pe titions for post-conviction re lief and w rit of er ror c oram nobis. The petitioner di d not include the judgment of convictions or other

documentation in the re cord on a ppeal. How ever , acc ording to the petitioner’s pleadings, he ple d guilty to robbery in 1989 in exchange for a five -yea

r sentenc e in ca se number 89- 85 6. In 19 93 , the pe tit ion e r ple d gu ilt y to po sse ssi on of c ra c k c oc a ine wi th the int e nt t o d ist ri bu te and re ceive d a ten- year

sentenc e in ca se number 96- 166.

On Dec ember

14, 2007, the petitioner filed a pro se pe ti t i o n , ca ptioned “Post-Conviction Relief/Writ of Error Coram Nobis .” The petiti oner challenge d the vol untariness of his guilt y plea fo r r ob be ry in 1 98 9 b e c aus e he wa s ne ve r a dv ise d th a t hi s r ob be ry c on vic tio n c ou ld b e us e d to enhanc e “any subsequent fe lony convictions.” In making this argume nt, the petit ioner a sserted that-2-

other omi ssions occur

red during the pl ea he aring a nd he did not understand the “full conse quence s and ef fec t” of his plea until he wa s subsequently “c onvicted in Federa l Court.” On Janua ry 18, 2008, the petitioner filed a

separ ate petition challenging the voluntariness of his 1993 guilty plea for felony drug possession on the same ba sis. The circ uit court dismissed both petiti ons without an evidentiary hearing. The court found that the petit ioner’s petitions wer e bar red by the statute of limitations and the petitioner failed to state a c ognizable c laim for tol ling the l imitations period. In pa rticular, the
c ou rt no te d th a t th e pe tit ion e r’ s c la im o f i gn or a nc e of thela w d id no t tol l th e statut e of lim itatio ns

. The pe titioner appea led.

II. Ana lys is
On appe al , t h e petitioner a cknowledge s that he filed his petitions beyond the statute of limit ations for post-c onviction relief and writ of err or coram nobis. How ever , he conte nds that the lim itatio ns pe ri odsh ou ld b e “ e qu ita bly ” tol le d be c aus e he wa s n ot a wa reof thefa c t th a t hi s g uil ty ple a s w e reun kn ow ing a nd in volun tary , a ndthe re fo re , th e ple a s w e reob ta ine d invio latio n o f h is
c on sti tut ion a l righ ts.

A s tatut e of

lim itatio n p e ri odapp lie s to both po st- c on vic tio n pe tit ion s and pe tit ion s for writ of error coram nobis. A petit ion for post-conviction relief must be filed within one year of the final
a c tio n o f the hig he st state app e llate c ou rt to w hic h a n a pp e a l is take n, or , if

no app e a l is take n, wi thi n one yea r of the date on which the judgment became f inal, or consider ation of the pe tition i s barr ed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-102(a ). “Thestatute of limitations s h al l n o t be tolled for any rea son, including any tol ling or saving provision otherwise available at law or e quity.” Id . A court does not have jurisdiction to consider a post-c onviction petition filed outside the one-ye ar sta t u t e of limit ations unless: (1) the claim is based on a fina l appellate c ourt ruling establishing a constitutional right n o t r e c o g n iz e d a t th e ti me o f tria l b u t g iv e n r e tr o a c ti v e e f f e c t b y th e ap p e ll a te c ourt; (2) the claim i s based upon new scientific evidence establishing the petit ioner is actua lly innocent; or (3) the claim is based upon se nten ce s t hat wer e enhanced be cause of a pr evious conviction and the prev i o u s conviction was subse quently found to be illegal. See id. § 40-30-102( b). Simil arly, a petition for writ of e rror

coram nobis relief must be filed w ithin one year of the time judgment become s final in the trial court. See id. § 27-7-103.

A court may consider an untimely petition i f applying the statute of limit ations would deny the petitioner d u e p rocess. Se e Wo rk ma n v . S tat e , 41 S.W.3d 100, 103 (Tenn. 2001) ; Burford v. Sta te , 845 S.W.2d 204, 209-10 (Te nn. 1992). To dete rmine if due pr ocess r equire s the tolling of the statute of limitations, a court must weigh the petitioner’ s interest in ha ving an opportunity to present his claims in a meaningful ti me and manner against t he st ate’ s interest in preve nting the liti gation of stale and fraudulent claims. Bu rfo rd , 845 S.W.2d at 208. More spe cifica lly, a court should utilize thefo llo wi ng a na lys is:
(1) de termine whe n the limitation s p eriod would normally have begun to r un; (2) determine wh et h er t he grounds f or re lief ac tually arose a fter the limit ations period would normally have commence d; and (3) if the grounds ar e “later-a rising,” determine if, under the fac ts of the case , a strict application of the limit ations period
wo ulde ff e c tiv e ly d e ny thepe tit ion e r a re a so na bleop po rtun ity to p re se nt the c la im.W e not e t hat a t t he t i m e t he pet i t i oner w as s ent enc ed f or hi s c onvi ct i ons , t h e st at ut e of l i m i t at i ons f or t he 1
fi l i ng of a pe t i t i on f or pos t

- convi ct i on r el i ef w as t hr ee ye ar s

. H ow eve r , on M ay 10, 1995, t he G ene r al A s s em bl y f or th e S ta te o f T e n n e sse e m o d ifie d th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s fr o m th re e y e a rs to o n e y e a r. See Tenn. Pub. A ct s 207 § 3. The Pos t Convi ct i on Pr oce dur e A ct of 1995 doe s not pr ovi de pet i t i oner s f or w hom t he s t at ut e of l i m i t at i ons ha d a l r ea dy

e x p ire d a n y a d d iti o n a l tim e in w h ic h to file a p e tit io n fo r p o st-c o n v ic tio n re lief

. S e e C a rte r v . S ta te , 952 S. W

. 2d 417, 4 2 0 (T e n n . 1 9 9 7 ). F ro m h is p le a d in g s, it a p p e a rs th a t th e p e tit io n e r w a ited o v e r a d e c a d e to file h is p e tit io n s fo r p o stc o n v ic tio n re lief

. -3- Sa nd s v . S tat e , 903 S.W.2d 297, 301 (Tenn. 1995)

. In this case , the record reflec ts that the petitioner filed his pe titions well af ter the statute of limit ations period had e xpired. Moreove r, t he petiti oner has not provided any f acts whic h raise a 1 due proc ess conc ern. Se e , e .g ., Wi lli am s v . S tat e , 44 S.W.3d 464 (Tenn. 2001) (holding that strict application of the statute of limitations t o case s in which a pe titioner has bee n unilatera lly deprived of theop po rtun ity to s e e k s e c on d- tie r r e vie w o f h is c on vic tio ns thr ou ghmis re pr e se ntatio ns of his
a tto rn e y may v iol a te du e pr oc e ss) ; Se als v . S tat e , 23 S.W.3d 272, 279 (Tenn. 2000) (holding that the statute of limitations sh o u ld be tolled during time that petitioner was me ntally impaired). The petitioner’s a ssertion that the statute of limitations should be “equitably tolled” be cause h e was unawa re of the conse quence s of his guilty pl eas doe s not hold merit. The petitioner wa s aff orded
a re a so na bleop po rtun ity to pr e se nt his c la im re ga rd ing the vo lun tari ne ss of his gu ilt y p le a s a ndhis claim of ignorance does not cre ate a due process avenue of relief

. We have previously held that the po st- c on vic tio n s tatut e of lim itatio ns do e s n ot i nc lud e a dis cov ery exc e pti on wh ic h w ou ld t oll its one-ye ar limit. J

am e s Mar v in Ma rti n v. Sta te , No. E2004-00740- CCA-R3-PC, 2004 WL 2280425, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Oct. 11, 2004), perm. app. de nied ( T e n n

. Fe b 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 ). Furthe r, we ha ve pr e vio us ly de te rm ine d that me re la c k o f kno wl e dg e that a c la im e xis ts d oe s n ot t oll the statute of limitations. Se e , e .g ., J as on Ea rl H

illv . S tat e , No. E2005-00968-CCA-R3-PC, 2006 WL 389667 (T enn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Feb. 16, 2006), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. Sept. 5, 2006) (conc luding that petitioner’s lack of knowledge doe s not tol l the statute of limitations when petitioner ar gued that he did not dis cover his claim for re lief until the conviction was use d to enhanc e a su bs e qu e nt f

e de ra l se nte nc e ); Gu ill e rm o Mat iaz J ua n v . S tat e , No. 03C01-9708-CR-00318, 1999 WL 76453 (T enn. Crim. App. Feb. 18, 1999), perm. app. de nied (Tenn. July 12, 1999) ( determining that ignoranc e of the law did not bar a pplication of the post-c onviction stat u t e of limitations). Acc ordingly, the application of the statute of limitations in this c ase does not violate due proc ess and thec ir c uit

c ou rt didno t e rr

by su mma

ri ly d ism iss ing thepe tit ion s.
III. Conclusi on

Th e c ir c ums ta nc e s o f the pe tit ion e r’ s c a se do no t in dic a te that he was de nie d a re a so na ble op po rtun ity to a ssert his po st- c on vic tio n c la ims in a me a nin gf ul tim e a nd ma nn e r. Th e pe tit ionis time barre d, and the c ircu i t co u rt was corre ct to rule a ccor dingly. The judgments of the court are aff irmed.

___________________________________-4- J.C. McLIN, JUDG E