# FILED
April 22, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON APRIL 1998 SESSION

LARRY JONES, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9708-CR-00331 ) vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. P-15023 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R
This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s petition for post-convic

tion relief. In 1980, the petiti oner was convicted on two counts each of aggravated kidnappi ng and aggravated r ape, and one count of grand larceny

. On appeal, this Court affirmed the c onvictions for aggr

avated kidnapping and gr and larceny but revers

ed and dismissed the aggra vated rape conviction s. State v. Jones , No. 37, Shelby County ( Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, M ar. 19, 1981), perm. to app. denied , (Tenn., June 29, 1981). The petiti oner subsequently filed s everal state and federal petitions attacking his convictions and s

entences, the denial of the most recent petition for post-convic

tion relief having been affirmed by this Court in 1993. Jones v. State , No. 02C01-9207-CR-00162 ( Tenn. Crim. App., Feb. 10, 1993), perm. to app. denied , (Tenn., June 1, 1993).

In his present petition, the petitioner challenges the length of h is sentences. Finding that th ere were no grounds for relief and that the statute of limitations had expired,the trial court dismis sed the petition without a hearing. On appeal, the petitioner argue s that the case should be remanded s o that the petitioner may explain why

the statue of limitations should not bar relief. Howev

er, as the state properly argues in response, the petitioner had ampl e opportunity either in his 1992 petition or in response to the state’s motion in the proceed ing below to rebut the application of the statute. See T.C.A. § 40-30-206(g).1 The petition in thi s case was fil ed on June 16, 1995, and is ther efore governed by

the provi sions of the 19 95 Pos t-Convic tion Proc edure A ct. See Comp iler’s Notes, T.C.A. § 40-30-201 (1997).

2 The pe tition would als o be bar red und er the pre vious thre e year statu te of limitation s. See T.C.A . § 40-30 -102 (19 90) (rep ealed); Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W .2d 619 ( Tenn . Crim. A pp.), perm . to app. denied , (Tenn. 1994). 2

T.C.A. § 40-30-202(c) 1 provides that no more than onepetition for postconviction relief may be filed attacking a sing le judgment, and mandates that the tr ial court shall summarily

dismiss any second or s ubsequent petition if a prior petition was filed and resolved on the meri ts by a court of competent jur isdiction. Since the petitioner previously

filed at least two petiti ons that were resolv ed on the merits by the trial court and by this Court on appeal, the petitioner's present petition was properly dismissed. Additionally, after reviewing the entire record on appeal, w e find that the petitioner’s claim does not fall within one of the limit ed circumstances under w hich a prior petition may be r

e-opened. See T.C.A. § 40-30-217.
Nevertheless, pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a), a per son in custody under a sentence of a court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief within one year of the date of the final action of the highest state appellate c ourt to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, within one y ear of the date on which judg ment became final. The Post-Convic tion Procedure Act prov ides several limited exceptions to the one-year statute of li mitations, however none of them are applicable to the present case. See § 40-30-202(b). The petition in this case was filed w ell beyond the applicable statute of limitati ons, and would, therefore, other wise be considered untimel y. 2

For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for post-c onviction relief. Accor

dingly, it is her

eby ORDERED that the judgment o f the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20 , Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.3 Enter, this the ___ day of Apri l, 1998.

__________________________________ WILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE

__________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E

__________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE