ÿWPCñ: … %Vw@\ 0 ÜœU:x 4² Æ 0DÕ  0?! 0J` 0Tª 0^þ 0h\ 0rÄ 0|6 0†² 08 1uÈU,= 0diU,Í BùU*B)@DCi AM¬ÇùñÀ{± D3,6_² • 0@G(t ‡(v~û1vÓy3 AOL9Æ›9 0Da: D/¥: BÔ:X ;E<= U>U?@AEBCÓ€O(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularŽUv -Align3|xQ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ï(2Wy$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€IXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€XIXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ 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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ! ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òMarch€25,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAp…pellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó çÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€#Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€direct€appeal,€the€appellant€challenged€the€sufficiency€of€theÏconvicting€evidence;€contested€the€introduction€into€evidence€of€a€videotape€ofÏthe€victimððs€pretrial€interview€with€the€police;€alleged€newly€discovered€evidenceÏin€the€form€of€testimony€by€his€uncle;€asserted€that€his€sentence€is€excessive;Ïand€argued€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€bond€pending€appeal.Ì qÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€#Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOn€appeal€from€the€dismissal€of€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïthe€appellant€argued€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€on€direct€appeal€and,Ïagain,€contested€the€introduction€into€evidence€of€a€videotape€of€the€victimððsÏstatements€to€the€police.Ì""""'ÿÿdxd ,Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€#Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€State€concedes€that€the€petition€is€not€time„barred€under€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990)€because€of€this€court's€1992€decision€vacatingÏand€reinstating€its€direct€appellate€decision.€€It€is€unclear€from€the€recordÏwhether€the€issues€raised€in€the€appellantððs€petition€were€previouslyÏdetermined.€€Nevertheless,€for€the€reasons€set€forth€in€this€opinion,€we€affirm€theÏdismissal€of€the€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.Ì ¨ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€#Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€appellant€raised€numerous€issues€in€his€amended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€appeal,€the€appellant€relies€upon€his€claim€of€newlyÏdiscovered€evidence.€€He€concedes€that€the€post„conviction€court€properlyÏrefused€to€consider€issues€set€forth€in€his€petition€pertaining€to€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Ìà àWe€note€that€the€following€issues€are€interwoven€with€the€appellant'sÏallegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel:€€The€trial€court€failed€to€properlyÏexamine€child€witnesses€in€order€to€determine€if€they€were€competent,€therebyÏviolating€the€appellant's€right€to€due€process€of€law.€€Moreover,€the€appellantÏwas€not€given€an€opportunity€to€prepare€for€the€sentencing€hearing.€ÏSpecifically,€the€appellant€was€not€given€notice€of€the€State's€intent€to€seekÏenhanced€punishment.€€Finally,€the€appellant€alleges€that,€pursuant€to€a€changeÏin€the€policy€of€the€Tennessee€Board€of€Paroles,€he€is€no€longer€eligible€forÏparole.€€Therefore,€his€actual€sentence€is€"not€one€that€the€sentencing€judgeÏcontemplated"€and€"is€void."Ìà àIn€his€brief,€the€appellant€does€not€argue€that€these€issues€constituteÏcolorable€claims€for€relief,€mandating€the€appointment€of€counsel€and€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€Therefore,€we€need€not€evaluate€their€viability.€€Tenn.€R.ÏApp.€P.€27(a)(4)€and€(7);€Ct.€of€Crim.€App.€Rule€10(b).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòHarvey€v.€Stateóó,Ï749€S.W.2d€478,€479€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€In€any€event,€these€issues€areÏnot€colorable€claims€for€relief,€if€only€because€they€are€waived€due€to€theÏappellant's€failure€to€raise€them€in€prior€proceedings.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(1990).€€Moreover,€"substantial€justice"€does€not€require€the€remand€ofÏthe€appellant's€case€for€either€the€appointment€of€counsel€or€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€with€respect€to€these€issues.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„115€(1990);€ÏòòState€v.€Smithóó,€814€S.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.€1991);€òòSwansonóó,€749€S.W.2d€at€734„736.€€In€his€petition,€the€appellant€does€not€allege€that€the€grounds€for€reliefÏwere€previously€unavailable.€€òòSwansonóó,€749€S.W.2d€at€736.€€Rather,€he€assertsÏthat€he,€personally,€was€unaware€of€these€grounds€and€never€discussed€themÏwith€the€attorney€who€represented€him€during€his€first€post„convictionÏproceeding.€€However,€"the€rebuttable€presumption€of€waiver€is€not€overcomeÏby€an€allegation€that€[the€appellant]€did€not€personally€and€therefore,€'knowinglyÏand€understandingly,'€waive€the€ground€for€relief.€...€[An€appellant]€is€bound€byÏthe€action€or€inaction€of€his€attorney."€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03S01„9407„CR„00069€(Tenn.€September€25,€1995).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò j Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÔ€#Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€The€discovery€of€new€evidence,€following€the€expiration€of€the€thirtyÏdays€within€which€a€defendant€must€file€a€motion€for€new€trial,€must€be€raised€inÏa€writ€of€error€òòcoram€nobisóó.€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„26„105€(1990).€€The€purposeÏof€this€remedy€is€to€bring€to€the€attention€of€the€court€some€fact,€unknown€to€theÏcourt,€which€if€known€would€have€resulted€in€a€different€judgment.€€òòTeague€v.ÏStateóó,€772€S.W.2d€915,€920€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988)("newly€discoveredÏevidence€which€...€serves€no€other€purpose€than€to€contradict€or€impeach€theÏevidence€adduced€during€the€course€of€the€trial€...€will€not€justify€the€granting€ofÏa€petition€...€when€the€evidence,€if€introduced€at€the€trial,€would€not€haveÏresulted€in€a€different€judgment"),€òòoverruled€on€other€grounds€byóó€òòOwens€andÏPayne€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923€(Tenn.€1995).€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð27„7„103Ï(1980)€provides€that€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€must€be€submitted€"within€oneÏyear€after€the€judgment€becomes€final,"€reflecting€the€legislature's€intent€to€limitÏthe€availability€of€post„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€of€newly€discoveredÏevidence.€€In€the€appellant's€case,€the€judgment€of€conviction€became€final€onÏOctober€26,€1992.€€Therefore,€the€statute€of€limitations€ran€on€October€26,€1993,Ïand€this€remedy€is€unavailable€to€the€appellant.Ìà àWe€note€in€passing€that€the€rationale€underlying€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845ÏS.W.2d€204,€208€(Tenn.€1992),€in€which€our€supreme€court€held€that€theÏapplication€of€a€statute€of€limitations€in€the€context€of€post„convictionÏproceedings€may€violate€due€process€of€law,€would€not€apply€in€the€context€ofÏòòcoram€nobisóó€proceedings.€€In€òòBurfordóó,€the€supreme€court€was€balancing€theÏgovernmentððs€interest€in€administrative€efficiency€and€economy€and€theÏappellantððs€interest€against€an€excessive€sentence€in€violation€of€hisÏconstitutional€rights.€€òòIdóó.€at€209.€€Again,€newly€discovered€evidence,€alone,€doesÏnot€implicate€constitutional€rights.€€òòHerreraóó,€506€U.S.€at€404,€113€S.Ct.€at€862.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€€Ùò òßL€&'%;+'h|` | `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌà@ àDECEMBERÏSESSION,€1995Ìó óÌÌÌÌò òLESTER€DALE€HERRONó ó,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9506„CR„00167Ìà àAppellantà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHAWKINSÏCOUNTYÌvs.à àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€JamesÏE.€Beckner,€JudgeÌò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEó ó,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌPro€Seà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRuth€A.€ThompsonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDoug€GodbeeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMain€Street,€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àRogersville,€TN€€37857ÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÌJudgeÌÇÓÓà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌà àThe€appellant,€Lester€Dale€Herron,€appeals€òòpro€seóó€the€dismissal€of€hisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€without€the€appointment€of€counsel€or€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€In€this€appeal,€the€appellant€presents€essentially€twoÏissues€for€our€review.€€First,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€post„conviction€court'sÏorder€of€dismissal€does€not€comply€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b)Ï(1990).€€Second,€the€appellant€contends€that€his€petition€sets€forth€a€colorableÏclaim€of€relief€on€the€basis€of€"newly€discovered€evidence."€€After€reviewing€theÏrecord,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court.ÌÌà@ àò òòòI.€Factual€Backgroundóóó óÌÌà àThe€appellant€is€currently€incarcerated€in€the€state€penitentiary€pursuantÏto€a€1989€conviction€for€aggravated€sexual€battery.€€This€court€affirmed€theÏappellant's€conviction€on€February€9,€1990.€€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€No.€120€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€February€9,€1990).× ƒ( ××  ×€€Due€to€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel,€the€appellant€failed€to€timely€file€an€application€to€the€TennesseeÍSupreme€Court€for€permission€to€appeal€this€court's€judgment.€€The€appellantÏfiled€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€which€was€denied.€€On€appeal,€thisÏcourt€vacated€and€reinstated€its€earlier€judgment€in€order€to€allow€application€toÏthe€supreme€court€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11.€€òòState€v.€Herronóó,€No.€03C01„9109„CR„00284€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€March€10,€1992).× ƒ) ××  ×€€TheÏappellant€filed€a€Rule€11€application,€which€was€denied€by€the€supreme€courtÏon€October€26,€1992.€€The€appellant€then€filed€a€habeas€corpus€petition€in€theÏUnited€States€District€Court€for€the€Eastern€District€of€Tennessee.€€This€petitionÏwas€dismissed€on€December€17,€1993,€for€failure€to€exhaust€state€remedies.€ÏAlthough€not€otherwise€reflected€in€the€record,€the€appellant€states€in€theÏpetition€which€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal€that€he€filed€a€second€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€on€or€about€December€29,€1993,€which€was€dismissedÏwithout€the€appointment€of€counsel€or€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€February€17,Ï1994.€€Finally,€the€appellant€filed€the€instant€òòpro€seóó€petition€on€November€30,Ï1994.€€He€filed€amendments€on€January€30,€1995,€and€April€5,€1995.€€The€post„conviction€court€dismissed€the€instant€petition€on€May€17,€1995,€stating€that€"theÏ[appellant]€has€previously€had€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€all€the€matters€in€thisÏPetition€and€...€no€new€grounds€for€relief€are€raised€and€further€...€this€[p]etition€isÍtime„barred."× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€appellant€filed€a€petition€to€rehear€on€May€30,€1995.€€ThisÏpetition€was€dismissed€on€June€5,€1995.ÌÌà@ àò òòòII.€Analysisóóó óÌÌà àAgain,€on€appeal€the€appellant€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court'sÏorder€of€dismissal€does€not€comply€with€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b).€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„118(b)€provides:ÌÒ ` ÒÒ ` ÒÓÓUpon€the€final€disposition€of€every€petition,€the€court€shallÏenter€a€final€order,€and€...€shall€set€forth€in€the€order€or€aÏwritten€memorandum€of€the€case€all€grounds€presented€andÏshall€state€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€withÏregard€to€each€such€ground.ÌÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÌÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓThis€court€has€observed€that,€"[a]lthough€this€requirement€has€been€determinedÏto€be€mandatory,€the€failure€of€the€trial€judge€to€abide€by€the€requirement€doesÏnot€always€mandate€a€reversal€of€the€trial€court's€judgment."€€òòState€v.€Swansonóó,Ï680€S.W.2d€487,€489€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)(citations€omitted).€€òòSee€alsoóóÏòòSwanson€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€731,€739€n.3€(Tenn.€1988).€€Noncompliance€byÏthe€post„conviction€court€does€not€warrant€a€reversal€if€the€record€is€sufficient€toÍeffectuate€a€meaningful€appellate€review.€€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9107„CR„00233€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992).€ÏEven€if€not€ideal€in€form,€the€order€of€dismissal€in€this€case€does€set€forth€theÏreasons€for€the€post„conviction€court's€dismissal€of€the€appellant's€petition.€Ï"[W]here€the€record€of€the€proceedings€contains€the€reasons€of€the€trial€judge€forÏdismissing€the€petition,€the€record€is€sufficient€to€effectuate€meaningful€appellateÏreview."€€òòWatkins€v.€Stateóó,€No.€1121€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€SeptemberÏ18,€1989).ÌÌà àThe€appellant€also€argues€that€the€post„conviction€court€should€haveÏappointed€counsel€and€granted€the€appellant€an€evidentiary€hearing€in€order€toÏadequately€consider€the€appellant's€claim€of€newly€discovered€evidence.× ƒ, ××  ×€€TheÍnewly€discovered€evidence€consists€of€an€affidavit€executed€by€the€appellantððsÏdaughter,€Tina€Herron,€on€June€22,€1994.€€In€her€affidavit,€Ms.€Herron€allegesÏthat€the€victim€falsely€testified€against€the€appellant€at€trial.ÌÌà àThis€court€has€observed€that€there€is€a€discernible€trend€towardÏappointing€counsel€to€assist€òòpro€seóó€appellants€in€post„conviction€proceedings,Ïproviding€opportunities€to€amend€petitions,€and€allowing€evidentiary€hearings.€ÏòòCarmley€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9305„CR„00167€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,ÏJanuary€13,€1994).€€Nevertheless,€if€there€is€"a€lack€of€legal€merit,€appearingÏupon€the€face€of€the€petition,"€then€the€post„conviction€court€may€dismiss€theÏpetition€without€permitting€the€appellant€to€confer€with€counsel€and€without€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€òòBurt€v.€Stateóó,€454€S.W.2d€182,€184€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),Íòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòAllen€v.€Stateóó,€854€S.W.2d€873,Ï875„876€(Tenn.€1993);€òòSwansonóó,€749€S.W.2d€at€734.€€In€other€words,€"a€clearÏbut€patently€non„meritorious€petition€may€be€dismissed€summarily,"€without€theÏappointment€of€counsel€or€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€òòMartucci€v.€Stateóó,€872ÏS.W.2d€947,€949€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€€òòCureton€v.€Tollettóó,€477€S.W.2d€233,Ï236€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1971),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1972).€€A€petitionÏsets€forth€a€colorable€claim€if€it€alleges€facts€showing€that€the€conviction€resultedÏfrom€an€abridgment€of€a€constitutional€right€and€demonstrates€that€the€groundÏfor€relief€was€not€previously€determined€or€waived.€€òòCarmelyóó,€No.€03C01„9305„CR„00167.€€In€deciding€whether€a€colorable€claim€is€presented,€òòpro€seóó€petitionsÏshould€be€held€to€less€stringent€standards€than€formal€pleadings€drafted€byÏlawyers.€€òòAllenóó,€854€S.W.2d€at€875.€€If€the€availability€of€relief€cannot€beÏconclusively€determined€from€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€and€the€accompanying€records,Ïthe€appellant€must€be€given€the€aid€of€counsel.€€òòSwansonóó,€749€S.W.2d€at€734.ÌÌà à€This€court€has€previously€observed€that€a€claim€of€newly€discoveredÏevidence€does€not,€alone,€constitute€a€proper€ground€for€post„conviction€relief.€ÏòòMassey€v.€Stateóó,€No.€1121€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€November€5,€1987).€ÏUnder€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(1990),€the€appellant€must€state€aÏconstitutional€claim.€€Therefore,€a€claim€of€newly€discovered€evidence,€to€beÏcognizable€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€must€implicate€a€constitutional€right.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòGrizzell€v.€Stateóó,€No.€88„139„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€DecemberÍ29,€1988),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1989).€€In€òòMasseyóó,€No.€1121,€weÏstated€that€a€proffer€of€newly€discovered€evidence€generally€"amounts€to€noÏmore€than€a€request€to€relitigate€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€at€trial,€which€aÏpost„conviction€proceeding€may€not€be€employed€to€do."€€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòHatcher€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€03C01„9304„CR„00130€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€NovemberÏ12,€1993)("[t]he€insufficiency€of€evidence€[and]€witness€impeachment€are€notÏmatters€reviewable€in€these€collateral€proceedings).€€However,€in€òòState€v.€Slateóó,ÏNo.€03C01„9201„CR„00014€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Knoxville,€May€23,€1994),€weÏheld€that€a€challenge€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€may,€under€òòJackson€v.ÏVirginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€99€S.Ct.€2781€(1979),€implicate€due€process€of€law.€Ï"Thus,€the€issue€of€whether€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€meet€the€due€processÏstandard€provided€in€òòJacksonóó€is€a€proper€subject€of€post„conviction€review."€ÏNevertheless,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòHerrera€v.€Collinsóó,€506€U.S.Ï390,€402,€113€S.Ct.€853,€861€(1993),€held€that€òòJacksonóó€does€not€extend€toÏnonrecord€evidence,€including€newly€discovered€evidence.€€Thus,€the€appellantÏhas€not€stated€a€colorable€claim€for€relief.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€dismissing€theÏappellant's€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€is€œaffirmed.ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌJerry€L.€Smith,€JudgeÌÌÌ›œ2›