WPC3 # VUNa % 0(w@ 4+ ? 0DN  0 0( 0: 0d4U: 1m {d- 0 0XU 0L { {R { 0c_ 0z< 0 0xZ> B 0D 0@ 0L9 0L 0J 0T 0^o 0h D35 D+h 0r 0| 0 0 1u A 0K 0d!U>d!B)!DC!U *" AO8""U6q#o#%v~&v`( 0w3. 0. 04/ 0/ 00 0O1 0*2 AO3 0Dh3 D/3 B3HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($BrobeckseS.W.2d Crim AppCrumleyTollettCurwood WittRALDOLPH03C01GREENEBecknerWartburg02C01 D5eDDTgDDgӀ^!(zXX8d3|x(#$  0  BursonBehanMillsapsBallardFortneyCaricoAstro DyleS.W.2d CrimtriersByrge AppHatchettRuffin(8(2$ !  4X   0  Z<< KY.quotesindentions for quotes  X   X Zpp ?2opinionsopinions text style  X )XX XX )XX X )  X )XX XX )XX X )(Wf|$ @*  A ,cAZ"Arial RegularFlanaryBlountvilleBurson HarrS.W.2dtriersByrge Crim App03C01MedlineTiptonMedlintuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(Wf|$ @*  A ^1$F$number headings for opinions     !  (_$0    8(WV $   ^4'F$number headings for opinions      !    (W$    ^.!F$number headings for opinions    !  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;s$2,  0  .3  0  6"" U 4cite-caseXIXXXIXIXXXILevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5|NN T2statutesquoted material no indent first line        X  23 inchesindent 3 inches in    ӅLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 TDOCw]hereBomarH]abeas t]he d(3$ !  ("$    >c$"Small Circle"0 > $Small Circle0 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  $$$$'dxd'dxd2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23  ,./05678 ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)&;3&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK( $ Figure  1  P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 dDDDD7Border 1dd<  9p`(Arial&;EC << G !C  FF   YYY FILEDFX March19,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.FAppellateCourtClerk <  9p`(Courier New e !#d#C   $ 4  X        FFԀThepetitionerhasnotappealedthedismissalofhisclaimforhabeascorpusrelief.SeePottsv.State,833S.W.2d60(Tenn1992).  !#d#C   $ 4  X        CFThepostconvictionactof1995hasaddedaseparatestatuteoflimitationsfornewlyrecognizedconstitutionalrightsthatrequireretroactiveapplication.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b)(1)(Supp.1996).CPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva (O{$0  2,  a  .3  0` (#(#(bD$0  0` (#(#2,   .3  0 ` (#` (#(x$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2,(  0  )3  0 (# (#(Ƃ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2,(  a  )3  0h(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2,(   )3  0h(#h(#(4$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2,  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2,  a  )3  0p(#(#&C<< C($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . C  ݛ `   4   4  X \RA'\\RA'\FRGHEA1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE  JANUARY1997SESSION  X ` <RANDOLPHW.BROBECK, *  * Appellant, *VS.  *  *STATEOFTENNESSEE, *  * Appellee.  ` h*  * ` X C.C.A.#03C019601CC00043GREENECOUNTYHon.JamesE.Beckner,Judge(PostConviction)/zхForAppellant:RandolphBrobeck,proseMorganCountyRegionalCorrectionalFacilityP.0.Box2000Wartburg,TN37887ForAppellee:CharlesW.BursonAttorneyGeneral&ReporterEugeneJ.HoneaAssistantAttorneyGeneralCriminalJusticeDivision450JamesRobertsonParkwayNashville,TN372430493CecilC.MillsAssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral113WestChurchStreetGreeneville,TN37743OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMEDGARYR.WADE,JUDGEIǜ7<XdXXd7ќFԛ@  OPINION   Thepetitioner,RandolphBrobeck,appealsfromthetrialcourtssummarydismissalofhisapplicationforpostconvictionrelief.Thesingleissuepresentedonreviewiswhethertheactionwasbarredbythestatuteoflimitations.  Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.  OnAugust31,1985,thepetitionerwasfoundguiltyoftheaggravatedrapeandfirstdegreemurderofShirleyFair.Experttestimonyestablishedthathisbodilyfluidsmatchedsamplesfoundatthecrimescene.Thetrialcourtimposedsentencesoffortyyearsandlife.Bothconvictionswereaffirmedbyoursupremecourtondirectappeal.SeeStatev.Brobeck,751S.W.2d828(Tenn.1988).  OnNovember18,1993,thepetitionerfiledthispetition,hisfirst,allegingineffectiveassistanceofcounselandviolationsofnewlyrecognizedconstitutionalrights.Inthealternative,hesoughthabeascorpusrelief. J   ׀Thepetitionercontendedthattrialcounselwasineffectiveforfailingtoobjecttoimproperjuryinstructionsandfailingtoadequatelyresearchthelaw.Heallegedseveralotherconstitutionalviolations:juryinstructionsthatmalicecouldbeinferredbythewaythedefendanthandledtheweapon;instructionsthatpremeditationcouldbeformedinaninstant;instructionsthatmoralcertaintywasrequiredtoconvict;andthatthefelonymurderstatuteviolateddueprocessoflaw.Thosethreespecificjuryinstructionsunderattackareasfollows:8 8 (1) Likewise,ifadeadlyweaponishandledina[sic]suchamannerastomakethekillinganaturalorprobableresultofsuchconduct,thenyoumayinfermalicesufficienttosupportaconvictionofmurderinthefirstdegree,butagain,thisinferencemayberebuttedbydirectorcircumstantialevidence,orbyboth,regardlessofwhetherthesamebeofferedbythedefendantorexistsintheevidenceofthestate.8 8 (2) Premeditationmeansthattheintenttokillmusthavebeenformedpriortotheactitself[.]Suchintentordesigntokillmaybeconceivedanddeliberatelyformedinaninstant.8 8 (3) Nowreasonabledoubtisthatdoubtengenderedbyaninvestigationofallproofinthecase,andaninabilityaftersuchinvestigationtoletthemindresteasilyastothecertaintyofguilt[.]Reasonabledoubtdoesnotmeanacaptious,orapossible,oranimaginarydoubt.Absolutecertaintyisnotdemandedofthelawtoconvictofanycriminalcharge,butmoralcertaintyisrequired,andthismoralcertaintyisrequiredastoeverypropositionofproofrequisitetoconstitutetheoffense.  Thestatemovedtodismissthepetitionbecauseitwasfiledmorethanthreeyearsfromthedateofthelastappellateaction.Thepetitionerinsisted,however,thathisjuryinstructionclaimsandcertainotherofhisconstitutionalclaimswerebasedonnewgroundsunavailabletohimbefore.SeeBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992).  ThePostConvictionProcedureActprovidesthatapetitionforrelief,irrespectiveoftheremedysought,mustbefiled withinthreeyearsofthedateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourttowhichanappealistaken.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(repealed1995).Obviously,thepetitionerfailedtodoso.Thepetitionermaybringaclaimforreliefforaconstitutionalviolationiftheclaimwasnotrecognizedatthetime.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4030105,repealedsincethefilingofthispetition,providesasfollows K   :8 8 ReliefunderthischaptershallbegrantedwhentheconvictionorsentenceisvoidorvoidablebecauseoftheabridgementinanywayofanyrightguaranteedbytheconstitutionofthisstateortheConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,includingarightthatwasnotrecognizedasexistingatthetimeofthetrialifeitherconstitutionrequiresretrospectiveapplicationofthatright.(emphasisadded).  InBurford,oursupremecourtcarvedoutanarrowexceptiontothethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.Burfordhadbeensentencedasahabitualcriminaltoatermoflifeimprisonmentbaseduponfivepriorrobberyconvictions.Hefiledatimelypostconvictionpetition,allegingthatcertainofhisfivepriorrobberyconvictionswereconstitutionallyinfirmbecausehehadnotbeenadvisedofhisrightagainstselfincriminationbeforeenteringhisplea;hewasgrantedpostconvictionrelieffromtheseconvictions.Later,afterthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationshadexpired,Burfordfiledapetitiontosetasidethefindingofhabitualcriminalityonthebasisthattherewasnolongerasufficientnumberofpriorfelonyconvictionstoqualifyhimfortheenhancedpunishment.Oursupremecourtruledthatthestatuteoflimitations,whilegenerallycompliantwithconstitutionaldueprocess,violatedBurfordsspecificdueprocessrights:0 0 8 8 Ifconsiderationofthepetitionisbarred,Burfordwillbeforcedtoserveapersistentoffendersentencethatwasenhancedbypreviousconvictionsthatnolongerstand.Asaresult,BurfordwillbeforcedtoserveanexcessivesentenceinviolationofhisrightsundertheEighthAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,andArticleI,16oftheTennesseeConstitution,which,bydefinition,arefundamentalrightsentitledtoheightenedprotectionBurford,845S.W.2dat209.  InSands,oursupremecourtfurtherdefinedhowtoapplytheBurfordtest.Acourtmust:8 8 (1)determinewhenthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun;(2)determinewhetherthegroundsforreliefactuallyaroseafterthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced;and(3)ifthegroundsare laterarising,determineif,underthefactsofthecase,astrictapplicationofthelimitationsperiodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim.Inmakingthisfinaldetermination,courtsshouldcarefullyweighthepetitionerslibertyinterestin collaterallyattackingconstitutionalviolationsoccurringduringtheconvictionprocess,againsttheStatesinterestinpreventingthelitigationof staleandfraudulentclaims.Sandsv.State,903S.W.2d297,301(Tenn.1995)(citationsomitted)(quotingBurford,845S.W.2dat208).  Bytheuseoftheseguidelines,wehavefirstdeterminedthatthestatuteoflimitationsforthispetitionersconvictionsexpiredin1991.Itisourviewthatnoneoftheclaimsfitswithintheexceptiontotherule.Initially,theclaimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounselandtheunconstitutionalityofthefelonymurderstatutearenotnewconstitutionalgroundsforrelief.Theseclaimshavealwaysbeenavailabletothepetitioner.OursupremecourtsdecisioninSwansonv.State,749S.W.2d731(Tenn.1988)(requiringthestatetoproveeveryelementofthecrimebeyondareasonabledoubt),appliedtheruleofSandstromv.Montana,442U.S.510(1979).Theopinionwasreleasedbeforetheconclusionofthepetitionersdirectappeal;thus,theruleisnotnewlyrecognized.ThiscourthaspreviouslyheldthattheruleinStatev.Brown,836S.W.2d530(Tenn.1992)(clarifyingthedefinitionsofintentional,premeditation,anddeliberation)didnotcreateanewconstitutionalrule;thus,thejuryinstructioncomplaintshavenomerit.Statev.JoeNathanPerson,No.02C019205CC00106(Tenn.Crim.App.,atJackson,Sept.29,1993).InEanosEarlHuntv.State,No.03C019308CR00266,slipop.at45(Tenn.Crim.App.,atKnoxville,Feb.3,1994),thiscourtheldthatthephrase moralcertaintyinajuryinstruction,whenutilizedinpropercontext,doesnotviolateconstitutionalprinciples;thus,thepetitionersrelianceonCagev.Louisiana,498U.S.39(1990),ismisplaced.ThepetitionersclaimsfailtomeetthesecondprongoftheBurfordrule.  Inconclusion,wehavefoundnobasisinthepleadingsforthetollingofthestatuteoflimitations.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4030102(repealed1995).Itcanbeconclusivelydeterminedthatthepetitionerisnotentitledtorelief.Swanson,749S.W.2dat734.  Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.      򀀀      GaryR.Wade,JudgeCONCUR:򀀀WilliamM.Barker,Judge򀀀CurwoodWitt,Judge