# FILED
October 19, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L APPEALS OF T ENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE SEPTEMBE R SESSION, 1998

JESSIE LAFRA NTZ JACKS ON, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9711- CR-00523 ) Appe llant, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY V. ) ) ) HON. J. RANDAL L WYATT, JR. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (POST- CONVICTI ON)

FOR THE APPELLANT : FOR THE APPELLEE : JESSIE LAFRA NTZ JACKS ON, pro se JOHN KNOX WALKUP Specia l Needs Facility Attorney General& Reporter 7575 CockrillBend Industri al Road LISA A. NA YLOR Nashvill e, TN 37243-0469 Assistant Attorney General 2nd Floor, Cordel l Hull Bui lding 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashvill e, TN 37243 VICTO R S. JO HNS ON, III Distri ct Attorney General NICK BAI LEY Assistant Distri ct Attorney General Washington Square 222 Second Avenue North, Sui te 500 Nashvill e, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED ________________________ AFFIRMED THOMAS T. WOODALL, J UDGE-2- 

# OPINION

The Petiti oner, Jessi e LaFrantz Jackson, appeals the or der of the Davi dson Coun ty Criminal Court dismissing his pro sepetition for pos t-conv iction re lief. In this appe al, Petiti oner raises the followi ng three iss ues: (1) whet her the State obtained the first degree murder convi ction th rough the perj ured t estimony of t he key eyewitness; (2) whether the State failed to produce cer tain excul patory i nformation; and (3) whether his post-conv iction counsel was ine ffective for failingto offer impeac hme nt and exc ulpatory e vidence at the first pos t-conviction hearing . We affirm the tria l court’s de nial of pos t-conviction relief.

On Marc h 16, 1987, Petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life impri sonm ent. On August 25, 1987, Pet itioner filed a notice of appe al, but the appeal was di smissed in May of 1988 at the re quest of Petitioner and his cou nsel. O n Mar ch 29 , 1989 , Petitio ner fil ed his first pe tition for postconvicti on relief , clai ming ineffec tive assi stance of

counsel. The evi dentiary hearing
on the petit ion was held on v arious dates

beginn in g in July 1990. T he trial court denied relief

on July 28, 1994. On December 19, 1995, th is Court af firmed the dism issal. On June 10, 1996, our supreme court deni ed Petiti oner’s appl icatio n for permission to appe al. On March 31, 1997, Pet itioner filed a second petit ion seeking post-convi ction rel ief . On May 28, 1997 , t he t ri al cour t su mma ri ly

dis mi ssed the petition from which P etitioner no w appe als.-3- We will not a ddres s Petitio ner’s issues o n the m erits as we conc lude th at his petiti on for post- convicti on relief is ti me-ba r red by the statute of l imitati ons. At the ti me Peti tioner’ s convictio ns bec ame fin al, the statu te of limitation s applica ble to post-convi ction proceedings was t hree years. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40 -30-1 02 (repealed 1995). His con viction becam e final in May 1988 when he w ithdre w his directappeal for the murder convict ion. He the refore need ed to file his peti tion by May 1991 in orde r to toll the runnin g of the statute . How ever, P etitione r did no t file this pet ition for post- convicti on relief until March 31, 1997, t hus barringany cl aims he mig ht have h ad.

The new 1995 Post-Convic tion Act go verns this petiti on and all pet itions filed after May 10, 1995. Petiti oner’s petition is not revi ved by the new Post-Convicti on Procedu re Act. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-201 et seq . Petit ioners “f or whom the statute of limitations expired p rior to the effe ctive date of the new Act, i. e., May 10, 1995, do not have an addi tion al year in which to file petiti ons for post-convict ion relief.” Carter v. S tate , 952 S.W.2d 417, 418 (Tenn. 19 97). Also, Petition er’s cl aims do not fall into an y of the thre e recog nized ex ceptions to the new Act in which a trial court can have jur isdicti on to consider a petiti on filedoutside t he statute of limitati ons. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202(b) . Furthermore, pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-202( c), a Peti tioner may only fil e one post-convi ction pet ition attacki ng a single jud gmen t. Howev er, a petitioner may file a m otion in the trial court to reopen a p revi ous ly fil ed post-conviction pet ition in f our limited cir

cumstances. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-217(a). After a caref ul rev iew of t he record , we find-4-

thatPetition er’s alle gation s in the case sub judice , even if true, woul d not support the applicab ilityof any of tho se circum stance s. See Tenn. C ode Ann . § 40-30-217 (a).

Based on the foregoi ng, we conclude t hat the tri al court’s summary dismissal of the petition was a ppropriate. Te nn. Code Ann. § 40-3 0-206(b).

____________________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge

CONCUR:

___________________________________ GARY R. WA DE, Presiding J udge

___________________________________ J. CURWO OD W ITT, JR., Judge