ÿWPCÚ# …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — w@¦ 0 æ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 AM˜ 0rå 0|W 0†Ó 0Y 1ué 0d^²ÂÈt<Û@v~ B™vÓ¶U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC! D3]! AM! 0XÝ! AO5"Æ„" 0DJ# D/Ž# B½#˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓƒ‰"3|xe  Q {R ES T DU V EW X %eY fZ Ó€(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ ¨Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ10,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€'ÔÓÓThe€petitioner€concedes€that€other€state€witnesses€described€the€outsideÏarea€near€the€crime€scene€as€"very€dark€...€not€well„lighted."€€Ì úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€'ÔÓÓThe€petitioner€interpreted€the€testimony€as€being€inconsistent€with€theÏpretrial€statement;€Ms.€Day€testified€that€she€saw€two€people,€including€theÏpetitioner,€in€or€near€the€victim's€apartment.€€Ì ÑÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€'ÔÓÓThe€state€has€filed€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€in€òòCarteróó.€€WeÏrecommend€that€here€as€well€and€further€suggest€a€request€to€consolidate.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd$$$$'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€&JXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€'ÔœßR€)A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌà@ àAPRIL€1996€SESSIONÌÌRALPH€DEWAYNE€BROCK,à à*à àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9508„CC„00247€Ìà àà àAppellant,à àà à*à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Frank€L.€Slaughter,€Judge€ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓRalph€Dewayne€Brock€à àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌCCA€South€Central€Correctional€Ct.à àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€279€ÌClifton,€TN€€38425„0279€à àà àà àEugene€J.€Honea€Ì(Pro€Se)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBarry€Staubus€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€€37617ÌÌà àà àà àÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner,€Ralph€Dewayne€Brock,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denialÏof€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€issue€presented€for€review€is€whetherÏthe€trial€court€correctly€dismissed€the€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€theÏbasis€that€the€claims€had€either€been€previously€determined€or€were€barred€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations.ÌÌà àà àWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€petitioner€was€identified€as€having€participated€in€aÏNovember€1982€burglary€at€an€apartment€occupied€by€the€victim,€James€Beverly.€ÏThe€victim,€who€was€beaten€and€stabbed€until€he€lost€consciousness,€ultimatelyÏdied€due€to€ligature€strangulation.€€A€witness€identified€the€petitioner's€car€at€theÏcrime€scene€on€the€night€of€the€murder.€€There€was€evidence€that€the€petitionerÏhelped€dispose€of€the€victim's€car;€there€was€proof€that€he€threw€away€a€bloody€pairÏof€gloves€and€a€bloody€knife€when€he€learned€he€was€being€sought€by€police.€€TheÏpetitioner€admitted€that€he€had€received€several€articles€stolen€in€the€robberyÏshortly€after€the€murder€but€otherwise€denied€any€participation€in€this€incident.€€HisÏgirlfriend€testified€on€his€behalf€as€an€alibi€witness.€€A€codefendant,€whileÏconceding€that€he€had€participated€in€the€killing€of€the€victim,€testified€at€trial€that€theÍpetitioner€was€not€involved,€claiming€that€the€petitioner€had€merely€purchasedÏsome€of€the€stolen€goods.€€That€codefendant€had,€however,€given€a€pretrialÏstatement€to€the€TBI€implicating€the€defendant€in€the€murder.€€Immediately€after€theÏmurder,€the€defendant€left€this€jurisdiction€and€sold€several€of€the€stolen€items.€€HeÏwas€eventually€apprehended€in€Georgia.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€June€30,€1983,€the€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder.€ÏThis€court€affirmed€the€conviction€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Brockóó,€678€S.W.2d€486Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€courtÏwas€denied€on€October€9,€1984.€€ÌÌà àà àThereafter,€the€petitioner€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€allegingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€dismissal€of€the€petition€was€affirmed€by€thisÏcourt€in€1986.€€òòRalph€DeWayne€Brock€v.€Stateóó,€No.€695€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏKnoxville,€January€9,€1986).€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supremeÏcourt€was€denied€March€31,€1986.€€A€second€post„conviction€petition,€allegingÏimproper€jury€instructions€and€the€denial€of€certain€witnesses€at€his€trial,€was€alsoÏdismissed.€€This€court€affirmed€on€appeal.€€òòRalph€D.€Brock€v.€Stateóó,€No.€781€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€October€15,€1987).€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÏthe€supreme€court€was€denied€December€28,€1987.€€A€third€petition€was€filed€onÍMay€7,€1992.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€on€grounds€of€previousÏdetermination€and€waiver.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(repealed€1995).€ÏAlternatively,€the€trial€court€found€the€petition€was€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed€1995).€€On€appeal,€theÏpetitioner€contended€that€the€statute€of€limitations€was€not€applicable:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[H]e€avers€[that]€the€facts€upon€which€he€bases€a€claim€ofÏprosecutorial€misconduct€were€not€known€to€him€untilÏApril€3,€1992,€when€he€obtained€copies€of€a€police€fileÏregarding€the€investigation€of€the€murder€upon€which€heÏwas€convicted.€€The€petitioner€relies€on€the€case€ofÏòòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992),€toÏsupport€his€contention€that€the€statute€of€limitations€didÏnot€commence€to€run€until€that€time.€€ÌÌòòÓÓRalph€D.€Brock€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,€No.€03C01„9212„CR„00427€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Knoxville,€August€23,€1993).€€This€court,€however,€found€that€because€noÏnew€right€had€arisen€due€to€the€discovery,€the€exception€defined€in€òòBurfordóó€affordedÏno€basis€for€relief.€€Application€for€permission€to€appeal€was€denied€November€29,Ï1993.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€most€recent€post„conviction€petition,€filed€June€14,€1995,€theÏpetitioner€asserted€two€grounds€for€relief:€€(1)€that€the€denial€of€relief€without€anÏevidentiary€hearing€in€his€third€post„conviction€petition€violated€his€right€toÏsubstantive€and€procedural€due€process;€he€claimed€that€the€statutory€bar€did€notÍapply€because€the€third€petition€was€based€upon€newly€discovered€evidence;€andÏ(2)€that€the€petitioner€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€because€hisÏcounsel€failed€to€use€"material€evidence"€(charts€of€weather€conditions€on€the€nightÏof€the€murder€which€might€impeach€the€testimony€of€Bonnie€Day€who€identified€theÏpetitioner€at€the€crime€scene€"on€a€fairly€clear€night€...€well€lit€up"× ƒ ××  ×)€and€availableÏexculpatory€evidence€(a€pretrial€statement€by€Ms.€Day€that€she€saw€someone€at€theÏvictim's€front€door€and€her€trial€testimony€that€the€petitioner€used€the€back€door€andÏother€possible€contradictions× ƒ! ××  ×).€€The€petitioner€insists€that€this€fourth€petition€isÏfounded€upon€an€unsuccessful€attempt€to€present€his€grounds€in€the€federal€courts:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àJudge€Thomas€Hull€for€the€Eastern€District€Federal€CourtÏstated€in€his€memorandum€opinion€filed€May€17,€1995,Ïthat€I€had€been€denied€access€to€the€state€courts,€byÏbeing€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,€to€have€theÏclaims€heard€and€[decided],€after€[being]€given€aÏhearing....€€Petitioner€is€now€before€this€Honorable€CourtÏto€exhaust€both€grounds€as€recommended€by€the€federalÏcourts.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIt€is€true€that€after€the€petitioner's€third€petition€and€before€his€fourth,Íhe€filed€a€petition€in€federal€court€for€habeas€corpus.€€òòRalph€D.€Brock€v.€Ricky€J.ÏBell,€Wardenóó,€No.€CIV„2„94„17€(E.D.€Tenn.,€Northeastern€Division,€at€Greeneville,ÏMay€17,€1995).€€In€that€cause,€the€state€moved€to€dismiss€the€petition€on€the€groundÏthat€the€petitioner€had€failed€to€exhaust€available€state€remedies€as€to€all€claims.€ÏThe€state€based€its€action,€at€least€in€part,€on€this€court's€holding€in€òòRobert€LeeÏSands€v.€State€of€Tennesseeóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„00241€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÏKnoxville,€January€13,€1994).€€The€state,€in€response€to€the€federal€habeas€corpusÏpetition,€interpreted€the€opinion€in€òòSandsóó€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€circumstance€of€newly€discovered€evidence,€suchÏas€is€alleged€by€the€petitioner,€that€bears€directly€on€hisÏclaims€for€prosecutorial€misconduct€and€effectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€may€fit€within€the€òòBurfordóó€court'sÏcategory€of€"later€arising€grounds"€for€which€the€statuteÏwould€not€"afford€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€have€theÏclaimed€issue€heard€and€decided."€€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845ÏS.W.2d€204,€208€(Tenn.€1992).€€If€so,€then€the€three„yearÏstatute€might€be€held€not€to€bar€consideration€of€theÏpetitioner's€claim€or€claims.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€his€May€17,€1995,€memorandum€opinion,€Judge€Hull€of€the€UnitedÏStates€District€Court€summarized€the€petitioner's€grounds€as€"prosecutorialÏmisconduct,€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€a€claim€that€Tennessee's€three„year€statute€of€limitations€on€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief€hasÏunconstitutionally€precluded€him€from€raising€a€claim€based€upon€newlyÍdiscovered€evidence."€€That€court€concluded€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)à àMr.€Brock's€claims€of€prosecutorial€misconductÏhave€been€exhausted;ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àMr.€Brock's€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€have€been€exhausted€with€the€followingÏexceptions:€€his€weather€records€contention,€which€doesÏnot€require€a€dismissal€of€this€case€since€it€is€clearlyÏprocedurally€defaulted;€and€òòhis€contention€that€hisÏattorneys€were€ineffective€because€they€had€access€toÏthe€state's€files€and€could€have€discovered€andÏeffectively€used€the€exculpatory€evidenceóó€not€producedÏby€the€state€in€response€to€his€òòBradyóó€motion.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àThat€the€state's€use€of€the€statute€of€limitations,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102,€as€a€ground€to€dismiss,Ïwithout€a€hearing,€his€third€petition€for€post„convictionÏ[relief]€violates€his€constitutional€right€of€access€to€theÏcourts,€etc.;€and€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(4)à àThe€court€is€convinced€that€Mr.€Brock's€claimsÏregarding€exculpatory€information€in€the€state's€filesÏwhich€was€disclosed€in€response€to€his€òòBradyóó€motionÏand€which,€arguably,€could€have€been€discovered€by€hisÏattorneys€with€due€diligence,€òòraise€a€serious€questionÏabout€the€fundamental€fairness€of€his€trial€which€must€beÏpresented€to€the€state€courtsóó.€€Moreover,€òòthe€state€courtsÏshould€be€allowed€to€address€the€question€of€whether€orÏnot€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€violated€hisÏconstitutional€rights€when€it€was€used€to€bar€his€claimÏinvolving€evidence€he€was€unaware€of€before€the€statuteÏranóó.€€ÌÌ(Emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àOn€June€26,€1995,€a€little€over€one€month€after€Judge€Hull's€opinion,Ïthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€while€affirming€the€rule€in€òòBurfordóó,€modified€the€Ïholding€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€òòSandsóó:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àAfter€setting€forth€the€applicable€constitutionalÏstandard,€we€noted€that€Burford€was€prohibited€fromÏchallenging€...€1976€convictions€in€Trousdale€CountyÏuntil€the€court,€with€sole€jurisdiction€over€the€matter„„theÏWilson€County€Criminal€Court„„had€set€aside€theÏconvictions;€and€that,€therefore,€the€"petitioner€foundÏhimself€caught€in€a€procedural€trap€and€unable€to€initiateÏlitigation€in€Trousdale€County€despite€the€approach€ofÏthe€three„year€limitation€period."€€We€then€concludedÏthat,€under€the€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€rigidÏapplication€of€the€time€bar€in€ðð€40„30„102€served€toÏdeprive€Burford€of€due€process€of€law.€€ÌÌà@ à*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àIn€assessing€the€merits€of€[the€òòSandsóó]€holding,€itÏwill€be€helpful€to€summarize€the€basic€rule€to€be€derivedÏfrom€òòBurfordóó:€€that,€in€certain€circumstances,€due€processÏprohibits€the€strict€application€of€the€post„convictionÏstatute€of€limitations€to€bar€petitioner's€claim€when€theÏgrounds€for€relief,€whether€legal€or€factual,€arise€after€theÏ"final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€whichÏan€appeal€is€taken"„„or,€in€other€words,€when€theÏgrounds€arise€after€the€point€at€which€the€limitationsÏperiod€would€normally€have€begun€to€run.€€In€applyingÏthe€òòBurfordóó€rule€to€specific€factual€situations,€the€courtÏshould€utilize€a€three„step€process:€€(1)€òòdetermine€whenÏthe€limitations€period€would€normally€have€begun€to€run;Ï(2)€determine€whether€the€grounds€for€relief€actuallyÏarose€after€the€limitations€period€would€normally€haveÍcommenced;€and€(3)€if€the€grounds€are€"later„arising,"Ïdetermine€if,€€under€the€facts€of€the€case,€a€strictÏapplication€of€the€limitations€period€would€effectivelyÏdeny€the€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€presentÏthe€claimóó.€€In€making€this€final€determination,€courtsÏshould€carefully€weigh€the€petitioner's€liberty€interests€inÏ"collaterally€attacking€constitutional€violations€occurringÏduring€the€conviction€process,"€against€the€state'sÏinterest€in€preventing€the€litigation€of€"stale€andÏfraudulent€claims."€€òòÌÌÓÓSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297,€301€(Tenn.€1995)(citations€omitted)(emphasisÏadded).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€supreme€court€ruled€that€Sands'€claim€was€not€a€"later„arisingÏground"€because€the€type€of€error€alleged€(based€upon€the€holding€in€òòSandstrom€v.ÏMontanaóó,€442€U.S.€510€(1979));€it€held€that€òòSandstromóó€had€been€retroactivelyÏapplied€in€this€state€for€several€years€before€the€statutory€period€of€limitationsÏbegan€to€run€for€Sands€in€1986.€€òòIdóó.€at€301„02.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€òòCaldwell€v.€Stateóó,€917€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.€1996),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€117ÏS.€Ct.€148€(1996),€our€supreme€court€revisited€the€principles€considered€in€òòBurfordóóÏand€òòSandsóó.€€The€court€concluded,€"after€carefully€balancing€the€legitimate€stateÏinterests€of€precluding€stale€claims€and€limiting€excessive€costs€with€the€petitioner'sÏinterest€in€litigating€this€particular€constitutional€claim€...€that€the€state's€interests€areÍweightier."€€òòId.óó€at€668.€€It€determined€that€the€"strict€enforcement€of€the€limitationsÏperiod€does€not€serve€to€deprive€the€petitioner€of€a€reasonable€opportunity€toÏlitigate€his€claim...."€€òòIdóó.€€In€so€ruling,€the€supreme€court€reversed€the€decision€of€thisÏcourt€in€òòRichard€Caldwell€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9405„CC„00099€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ïat€Jackson,€December€28,€1994).€ÌÌà àà àThis€history€of€law€development€on€the€òòBurfordóó€rule€may,€in€part,Ïexplain€why€the€state€took€the€position€in€September€of€1994€that€the€petitioner€hadÏnot€exhausted€his€remedies€in€the€state€courts€and€now€insists€that€all€of€petitioner'sÏclaims€have€been€previously€determined,€waived,€or€otherwise€barred€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations.€€We€must€consider€each€of€the€claims€of€the€petitioner€in€theÏcontext€of€the€defenses€claimed€by€the€state.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€first€consideration€is€whether€the€statute€of€limitations€is€a€bar.€ÏEffective€May€10,€1995,€the€new€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€replaced€the€priorÏact€in€its€entirety.€€òòSeeóó€1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Act€207,€ðððð€1€and€3.€€Because€this€petitionÏwas€filed€in€June€of€1995,€the€most€recent€legislation€replaced€a€three„year€with€aÏone„year€limitation:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)€...[A]€person€in€custody€under€a€sentence€of€a€court€ofÏthis€state€must€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€underÍthis€chapter€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€date€of€the€finalÏaction€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€anÏappeal€is€taken€or,€if€no€appeal€is€taken,€within€one€(1)Ïyear€of€the€date€on€which€the€judgment€became€final,€orÏconsideration€of€such€petition€shall€be€barred.€€TheÏstatute€of€limitations€shall€not€be€tolled€for€any€reason.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)€Consideration€of€a€petition€filed€after€such€time€shallÏbe€barred€unless:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(1)€The€claim€in€the€petition€is€based€upon€a€finalÏruling€of€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutionalÏright€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€ofÏtrial,€if€retrospective€application€of€that€right€is€required.€ÏSuch€petition€must€be€filed€within€one€(1)€year€of€theÏruling€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€or€the€UnitedÏState€[S]upreme€[C]ourt€establishing€a€constitutionalÏright€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€ofÏtrial;ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(2)€The€claim€in€the€petition€is€based€upon€newÏscientific€evidence€establishing€that€such€petitioner€isÏactually€innocent€of€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€theÏpetitioner€was€convicted;€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(3)€The€claim€asserted€in€the€petition€seeks€reliefÏfrom€a€sentence€that€was€enhanced€because€of€aÏprevious€conviction€and€such€conviction€in€the€case€inÏwhich€the€claim€is€asserted€was€not€a€guilty€plea€with€anÏagreed€sentence,€and€the€previous€conviction€hasÏsubsequently€been€held€to€be€invalid,€in€which€case€theÏpetition€must€be€filed€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€finality€ofÏthe€ruling€holding€the€previous€conviction€to€be€invalid.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202€(Supp.€1996).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àBecause€the€conviction€in€this€case€became€final€in€1984,€thisÏpetitioner€appears€to€have€been€bound€not€only€by€the€current€one„year€statute€ofÏlimitations€but€also€the€former€three„year€statute.€€Moreover,€the€grounds€raised€doÏnot€appear€to€fall€within€any€of€the€exceptions€set€out€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„202(b)(1),€(2),€or€(3)(Supp.€1996).€€The€1995€Act€is,€however,€€unequivocal€in€itsÏterms:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThis€act€shall€take€effect€upon€becoming€a€law,€theÏpublic€welfare€requiring€it€and€shall€govern€all€petitionsÏfor€post„conviction€relief€filed€after€this€date,€and€anyÏmotions€which€may€be€filed€after€this€date€to€reopenÏpetitions€for€post„conviction€relief€which€were€concludedÏprior€to€the€effective€date€of€this€act.€€òòNotwithstandingÏany€other€provision€of€this€act€to€the€contrary,€any€personÏhaving€a€ground€for€relief€recognized€under€this€act€shallÏhave€at€least€one€(1)€year€from€the€effective€date€of€thisÏact€to€file€a€petition€or€a€motion€to€reopen€under€this€actóó.ÌÌ1995€Tenn.€Pub.€Act€207,€ðð€3€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€òòArnold€Carter€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9509„CC„0020€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Knoxville,€July€11,€1996),€this€panel,€by€a€two€to€one€margin,€ruled€that€theÏliteral€terms€of€the€new€statute€created€a€one„year€window€during€which€post„conviction€petitions€may€be€filed,€notwithstanding€the€date€of€the€judgment.€€ThisÏmajority€found€no€ambiguities€in€the€terminology€of€the€statute€despite€the€Íreasonable€argument€by€the€dissent€to€the€contrary.× ƒ" ××  ×ÌÌà àà àThe€procedure€under€the€new€Act€is€specific.€€Rule€28,€adopted€by€theÏSupreme€Court,€provides€that€"no€pro€se€petition€shall€be€dismissed€for€failure€toÏfollow€the€prescribed€form€until€the€court€has€given€petitioner€a€reasonableÏopportunity€to€amend€the€petition€with€the€assistance€of€counsel."€€Here€theÏpetitioner€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€an€attorney.€€By€all€appearances,€the€ruleÏentitles€him€to€that.€€ÌÌà àà àThat€does€not€end€our€inquiry.€€While€the€petitioner€may€have€comeÏwithin€that€one„year€window€of€opportunity,€that€only€means€that€the€statute€ofÏlimitations€does€not€apply.€€There€are€other€procedural€bars€to€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitionerððs€claim€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€has€been,€in€our€view,€previously€determined€in€part€and€waived€in€part.€ÏHe€asserted€that€his€counsel€was€ineffective€because€of€a€failure€to€discover€andÏuse€at€trial€available€evidence,€including€òòBradyóó€material.€€The€petitioner€allegedÍineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€the€first€post„conviction€petition€he€filed.€€òòSeeóóÏòòRalph€DeWayne€Brockóó,€No.€695€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€9,€1986).€€AfterÏan€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€concluded€trial€counsel€met€the€standards€setÏforth€in€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668€(1984),€noting€counsel€ð ðthoroughlyÏinvestigated€the€case,€interviewed€numerous€witnesses,€and€made€responsibleÏjudgments€in€his€clientððs€behalf.ðð€€òòRalph€DeWayne€Brockóó,€No.€695,€slip€op.€at€2.€ÏThat€determination€was€confirmed€on€direct€appeal€to€our€court.€€òòIdóó.€€Thus,€thisÏground€for€relief€has€been€previously€determined:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àA€ground€for€relief€is€previously€determined€if€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€fullÏand€fair€hearing.€€A€full€and€fair€hearing€has€occurredÏwhere€the€petitioner€is€afforded€the€opportunity€to€callÏwitnesses€and€otherwise€present€evidence,€regardlessÏof€whether€the€petitioner€actually€introduced€anyÏevidence.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(h)(Supp.€1996)€.€€Here,€petitioner€was€afforded€aÏð ðfull€and€fair€hearingðð€and€the€trial€court,€as€well€as€our€court,€ð ðruled€on€the€meritsððÏand€found€the€petitioner€had€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àTo€the€extent€that€the€petitioner€wishes€to€litigate€additional€newÏgrounds€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€we€must€conclude€those€groundsÏhave€been€waived:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(g)à àA€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitionerÏpersonally€or€through€an€attorney€failed€to€present€it€forÏdetermination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€haveÏbeen€presented€unless:Ìà8 àà8 àà à(1)à àThe€claim€for€relief€is€based€upon€aÏconstitutional€right€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€timeÏof€trial€if€either€the€federal€or€state€constitution€requiresÏretroactive€application€of€that€right;€orÌà8 àà8 àà à(2)à àThe€failure€to€present€the€ground€was€theÏresult€of€state€action€in€violation€of€the€federal€or€stateÏconstitution.ÌÌÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(g)(Supp.€1996).€€The€petitioner€could€haveÏpresented€the€additional€grounds€for€relief€in€his€direct€appeal€or€in€his€first€post„conviction€petition,€for€which€he€was€granted€a€hearing.€€Yet€he€failed€to€do€so.€ÏAccordingly,€additional€grounds€for€relief€on€account€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€are€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àà àThe€only€issues€left€are€constitutional€claims€based€upon€any€newÏevidence€the€petitioner€claims€was€discovered€on€or€about€April€3,€1992,€upon€theÏrelease€of€police€files,€which€would€preclude€the€application€of€previousÏdetermination€or€waiver.€€If,€after€the€appointment€of€counsel€and€any€amendedÏpleadings,€the€petitioner€is€able€to€establish€that€the€prosecution€withheld€materialÏevidence€which,€if€available€and€not€discovered,€would€have€likely€altered€theÏresults€of€this€trial,€he€may€be€entitled€to€relief.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€therefore€reverse€and€remand€for€the€appointment€of€counsel.€€It€isÏonly€if€the€amended€pleading€precluded€any€possibility€of€relief€that€a€summaryÏdismissal€is€warranted.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€40„30„209€and€„210€(Supp.Ï1996).€€€€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge€