WPC UBV %nX 0P 4V j 0p 0D w@H 0J 0T 0^& 0h 0r 0|^ 0 0` 1u U,e 0d BU,U6>U*t D3B)DC 0@= AM}:]av~vk AO> 0DS D/ B<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX3|X <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  ԡ HM(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0    E D V D E  D  Ӏ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 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   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Arial$$$$'dxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("$    -,C << G 0 !  #d#( D    ))   YYY FILED)XJune11,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   S !#d#( D     $       ()ItisthepolicyofthisCourttousetheinitialsratherthanthenamesofminorvictimsofsexoffenses.  !#d#( D     $       ()Ofcourse,ifthetapecontainednoexculpatoryevidence,BradywouldnothaverequiredtheStatetoinformthedefendantaboutitsveryexistence.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &''Xd&#''Xd#( D    `  X 7XXdd7  \RA'\  )L./,;+'h|` 81 `Lߛ  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE  @ APRIL1996SESSION JACKIERAYFOSTER,   )       )  C.C.A.NO.01C019508CR00249   Appellant, 򀀀  )      ) DAVIDSONCOUNTY ̜VS.      )      ) HON.THOMASH.SHRIVER,STATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) JUDGE      )  Appellee.    ) (Postconviction) FORTHEAPPELLANT:    FORTHEAPPELLEE: THOMAST.ϜOVERTON    CHARLESW.BURSON 213ThirdAve.N.     AttorneyGeneral&Reporter Nashville,TN37201        ELLENH.POLLACK        Asst.AttorneyGeneral̀       450JamesRobertsonPkwy.        Nashville,TN372430493           VICTORS.JOHNSON,III        DistrictAttorneyGeneral       JOHNP.SEABORG        Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral       200WashingtonSquare       Suite500       Nashville,TN37201                   OPINIONFILED:____________________ AFFIRMED JOHNH.PEAY, Judge  @ OPINION     Thepetitionerwasindictedforthirtycountsofaggravatedrapeandfourteencountsofaggravatedsexualbattery.Hepledguiltytoandwasconvictedoftwocountsofaggravatedrapeandtwocountsofaggravatedsexualbattery.HewassentencedasaRangeI,standardoffendertotwentyfiveyearsforeachoftheaggravatedrapeconvictions,andtwelveyearsforeachoftheaggravatedsexualbatterycases,allsentencestorunconcurrentlyforaneffectivesentenceoftwentyfiveyears.ThiswasthesentencerecommendedbytheState.  Thepetitionerfiledforpostconvictionrelief,allegingnumerousgrounds.Afteranevidentiaryhearing,thelowercourtdeniedrelief.Thepetitionernowappealsonasingleground,allegingthattheStateviolatedBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963),andthathisguiltypleawasthereforeuninformed.Weaffirmtheholdingofthelowercourt.  Thepetitionerwasindictedfornumerousinstancesofsexuallymolestinghisminorstepdaughter,W.A. 0   ׀Thevictimhadallegedthatthesexoffensesoccurredoverafouryearperiod,beginningwhenshewasapproximatelysixyearsold.DetectivePaulHydeoftheMetroPoliceDepartmentYouthServicesϜDivisioninvestigatedthecase.HetestifiedthathehadsentthecasefiletotheϜdistrictattorneyandthathehadpreparedthecasesynopsiswhichbecamethefrontpageofthiscasefile.Thissynopsisincludesthenotation, ThereisatapeIhaveinmypossessionthatwasgiventomebyDarleneFoster,victimsmother,thatsupposedlyconsistsofaconversationbetweenvictimandvictimsmotherconcerningvictimsdisclosureofabuse.Ihavenotlistenedtothetape.DetectiveHydetestifiedthathecouldnotrecallwhetherhehadeverlistenedtothetapeatanytimeafterpreparingthesynopsis.Hefurthertestifiedthat,althoughhehadlookedforit,hehadbeenunabletofindthetape.AssistantDistrictAttorneyBailey,towhomthecasefilewassent,testifiedthathehadnorecollectionofeitherhavingreceivedthetape,oroflisteningtoit.Hefurthertestifiedthat,basedontheremainderofhisinvestigationintothecase,hehadnoreasontobelievethetapewasexculpatory.  Priortothepetitionerenteringhisguiltyplea,theStaterespondedtothepetitionersdiscoveryrequest.TheStatesresponseincludedthestatement, InaccordancewiththedecisioninBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963),allitemsofexculpatorynature,ifanytherebe,willbefurnishedtodefensecounselifandwhenanysuchitemorinformationbecomesknowntotheState.Thepetitionerscounseldidnotlearnabouttheexistenceofthetaperecordingpriortothedefendantsguiltyplea.  Afterthepetitionerfiledhispetitionforpostconvictionrelief,theStateprovidedhisattorneywithaccesstoits bluefile.Apparently,thepetitionerspostconvictionlawyerdiscoveredtheexistenceofthetapeatthetimehereviewedtheStatesfile.ThepetitionernowallegesthatthistapemayhaveincludedexculpatoryevidencewhichwasnotturnedovertohiminviolationofBradyv.Maryland,andthatheisthereforeentitledtohavehisguiltypleasetasideandbetried.Hecontendsthatifhehadknownabouttheexistenceofthetapeatthetimeofhisplea,hewouldnothavepledguilty.Thepetitioneradmittedatthehearingonthismatter,however,thathedoesnotknowwhatisonthetape.Nordidthepetitionercallthevictimsmothertotestifyaboutwhatwasonthetape.  UnderBradyv.Maryland,theprosecutionmustfurnishtheaccusedwithanymaterialexculpatoryevidencethatpertainstotheguiltorinnocenceoftheaccused,orthepunishmentwhichmaybeimposeduponconviction.373U.S.83(1963).Exculpatoryevidenceincludesevidencewhichtheaccusedmayusetoimpeach.Gigliov.UnitedStates,405U.S.150(1972). [A]violationoftherequirementsfoundinBrady...isadueprocessviolation.Statev.Davis,823S.W.2d217(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).  Thepreciseissueinthiscase,however,iswhethertheStateviolatedBradyifitfailedtoreviewthetapeandmakeadeterminationaboutwhetheritcontainedanymaterialexculpatoryevidence.ThereappearstobenoreporteddecisionfromaTennesseeappellatecourtaddressingthisparticularissue.Severalfederalcircuitcourtsofappealhave,andhaveconcludedthat theprosecutionsBradyobligationsincludenotonlyadutytodiscloseexculpatoryinformation,butalsoadutytosearchpossiblesourcesforsuchinformation.U.S.v.Brooks,966F.2d1500,1502(D.C.Cir.1992).Seealso,U.S.v.Perdomo,929F.2d967(3rdCir.1991);Careyv.Duckworth,738F.2d875(7thCir.1984);andU.S.v.Auten,632F.2d478(5thCir.1980).Wethinkthisisthecorrectrule.Importantly,however,thisdutyislimitedtoexamining nontrivialprospect[s]ofmaterialexculpatoryinformation.Brooks,966F.2dat1504.   Inthiscase,thecourtbelowdeniedthepetitionerspetition,findingthatthe evidencewevegotbeforeusaboutthecontentsofthetapeisnotconsistentwithanythingexculpatory.OfficerHydesnoteaboutitsaysthatitconsistsofaconversationbetweenthevictimandthevictimsmotherconcerningthevictimsdisclosureofabuse.Thattellsmethemothergotthechildtotellaboutitandtapedit.Now,IvegotnothinghereIvegotnoeventhresholdpredicateforbeliefthatthatthistapeisanexculpatorypieceofmaterial.  "Inpostconvictionreliefproceedingsthepetitionerhastheburdenofprovingtheallegationsinhis[orher]petitionbyapreponderanceoftheevidence."McBeev.State,655S.W.2d191,195(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).Furthermore,thefactualfindingsofthetrialcourtinhearings"areconclusiveonappealunlesstheevidencepreponderatesagainstthejudgment."Statev.Buford,666S.W.2d473,475(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).  Thepetitionerhasmadenoshowingthattheinformationcontainedonthetapewasinanywayexculpatory.Basedonthelowercourtsfindings,theprospectofthispieceofevidencecontaininganymaterialexculpatoryinformationmustbedeemed trivial.Moreover,wefinditincrediblethatthepetitionercontendsthathewouldnothavepledguiltyhadhemerelyknownabouttheveryexistenceofthetape,irrespectiveofwhatmayhavebeenrecorded. 1   כ  Astheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthelowercourtsfindings,weaffirmitsdenialofthepetitionersclaimforrelief.  Ӝ      ____________________________________      JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:̜______________________________JOEB.JONES,PresidingJudge̜______________________________DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge%  ԛ