IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
MARCH 1998 SESSION
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
)
Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9707-CC-00266
)
vs.
STEVEN S. NEWMAN,
) DECATUR COUNTY
)
) Nos. 25, 86
FILED
)
March 11, 1998
Appellant. )
Cecil Crowson, Jr.
Appellate C ourt Clerk
ORDER
This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s
petition for post-conviction relief. On January 5, 1987, the petitioner pled guilty to four
counts of third degree burglary and one count of larceny from a vending machine, and
on October 24, 1988, the petitioner pled guilty to second degree burglary and grand
larceny. No appeal was taken from these convictions. On May 6, 1996, the petitioner
filed a petition for post-conviction attacking the 1987 and 1988 larceny convictions; he
apparently did not challenge the burglary convictions. The petitioner claimed that he
was not fully advised of his rights against self incrimination or that these convictions
could be used to enhance subsequent convictions. Finding that the statute of
limitations had expired, the trial court dismissed the petition without a hearing.
Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a)1, a person 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 court to which an appeal is taken or, if
no appeal is taken, within one year of the date on which judgment became final. The
Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides several limited exceptions to the one-year
statute of limitations, however none of them are applicable to the present case. See §
40-30-202(b). The petition in this case was filed well beyond the applicable statute of
1
The petition in this case was filed on May 6, 1996, and is therefore governed by the provisions
of the 19 95 Pos t-Convic tion Proc edure A ct. See Comp iler’s Notes, T.C.A. § 40-30-201 (1997).
limitations, and is, therefore, untimely. 2 Accordingly, the post-conviction court properly
dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. T.C.A. § 40-30-206(b). Contrary
to the petitioner’s claim, the 1995 Post-Conviction Procedure Act did not create a one
year window in which previously barred claims could be raised. See Carter v. State,
952 S.W.2d 417 (Tenn. 1997).
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that the trial court did not err
in dismissing the petitioner’s petition for post-conviction relief. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20,
Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Enter, this the ___ day of March, 1998.
__________________________________
JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE
__________________________________
GARY R. WADE, JUDGE
__________________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
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