WPC +VsM`$ 2 "^H)Ex{+dLN*o[bP0Hޔ3e9\4G'07 $fXWerlaEIW}[`i=V+Z8'i9{s |O[gkA`͚4'ldCaz|رGHpBxAQiB8y%T,4` "<ǑH 8A#GNYm`q{^UIT{ל0_fh2B)Qf6O&o}\ AttorneyatLaw   h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter 2* 500ChurchStreet,5thFl h   Nashville,TN37219 h     KimR.Helper    `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral  (#   (ONAPPEAL)   h     CriminalJusticeDivision   `     h     425FifthAvenueNorth `     h     2dFloor,CordellHullBuilding WilliamC.Roberts,Jr.  h     Nashville,TN372430493 x   (#  !z AttorneyatLawSuite2121,ParkwayTowers   T#L Nashville,TN37219 h      p      :$2   `     h     VictorS.(Torry)JohnsonIII  (#   %! (ATTRIAL)    h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral  &"  `     h     DianeS.Lance  ' $  `     h     Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     WashingtonSquare,STE500 `     h     2222ndAvenueNorth `     h     Nashville,TN37219OPINIONFILED:򀀀 /(, AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes  r4j-2 Judge  ^5V.3 @+ OPINION    ` Theappellant,TomHarris,appealsthedismissalofhispetitionforpostconvictionreliefbytheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourt.Thepostconvictioncourtdismissedthepetitionfindingthattheclaimsallegedwerebarredbythestatuteoflimitations,and,otherwise,withoutmerit. ` Afterreview,weaffirm. ` @ff) Background  @8  ` InOctober1986,theappellantwasconvictedofonecountofaggravatedsexualbatteryandonecountofaggravatedrape.   #  1      ׀Theappellantsconvictionsand  sentenceswereaffirmedbythiscourtinJune1988.SeeStatev.Harris,No.86  273III(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Jan.20,1988),rehggranted,(Tenn.Crim. |t App.atNashville,Mar.11,1988),affdasmodifiedonrehg,(Tenn.Crim.App.at L D Nashville,June23,1988),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.Nov.7,1988).OnMarch " 20,1996,theappellantfiledaprosepetition  #  2      ׀forpostconvictionreliefallegingthat, #  (1)inlightofoursupremecourtsdecisioninStatev.Livingston,907S.W.2d392 %" (Tenn.1995),hisconvictionwasimproperlybaseduponinadmissiblefreshcomplainthearsay,and(2)thatthereasonabledoubtinstructiontenderedtothejurywasunconstitutionallyinfirmunderRickmanv.Dutton,864F.Supp.686(M.D. +$( Tenn.1994).Thetrialcourtsummarilydismissedthepetition,holdingthatitwasbarredbytheapplicablestatuteoflimitationsandthattheissuesraisedinthepetitionwerewithoutmerit. 0x).   L2D+0  `  ThereisnodisputethattheappellantsMarch1996petitionwasfiledoutside  thethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsperiodapplicabletotheappellants1986conviction.See4030102(repealed1995).Nonetheless,theappellantasserts x p thatheisentitledtopostconvictionreliefunderTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b)(1)(1996Supp.).Tenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b)(1)providesthatapetitionforpostconvictionreliefmaybefiledbeyondthestatuteoflimitationsifthepetitionpresentsgroundsbasedonaconstitutionalrightUdiscoveredUVestablishedVbythecourtsafterexpirationoftherelevantlimitationsperiodandthenewlyWdiscoveredWXestaXYXb;osjXYZblishedZconstitutionalrightrequires xp retroactiveapplication.SeealsoBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992). D< Notwithstandingthisexception,anysuchpetitionfallingunder(b)(1)mustbefiledwithinoneyearofthecourtrulingestablishingthenewconstitutionalright.See  Tenn.CodeAnn.4035202(b)(1).@* Analysis  @ 8  ` Initially,wenotethattheappellantconcedesthattheTennesseeSupremeCourthasupheldtheconstitutionalityofthe moralcertaintylanguagecontainedinthereasonabledoubtinstruction.SeeStatev.Nichols,877S.W.2d722,734 %" (Tenn.1994),cert.denied,513U.S.1114,115S.Ct.909(1995);seealsoPettyjohn |'t $ v.State,885S.W.2d364,36566(Tenn.Crim.App.1994).Althoughwerecognize H)@"& theappellantsinterestinpreservinghisrighttolaterassertsuchaclaiminfuturelitigation,hischallengetothereasonabledoubtjuryinstructiondoesnotconstituteanexceptionunderTenn.CodeAnn.4030202(b)(1),asneitherRickmanv. .', Dutton,864F.Supp.at686,noritspredecessorscreatedanewconstitutionalrule x0p). oflawthatwouldjustifythetollingofthestatuteoflimitations.SeeWrightv.State, H2@+0 No.01C019506CR00211(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Mar.20,1997),affdby, 4 -2 No.01S019709CR00196(Tenn.Feb.1,1999).See,e.g.,Gentryv.State,No. 5.4 01C019704CR00119(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Feb.23,1998);Millerv. 706 State,No.01C019606CC00239(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Oct.24,1997), 9|28 perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.Apr.20,1998).Althoughajuryinstructionsimilarto  theonegiveninthepresentcasewasfoundtobeunconstitutionalinRickmanv.  Dutton,864F.Supp.at70910andagaininAustinv.Bell,938F.Supp.1308,   131819(M.D.Tenn.1996),affdinpart,revdinpart,126F.3d843(6thCir.1997),   #  3       l d thiscourtisnotboundbythedecisionsofthefederaldistrictcourtwithregardtotheconstitutionalityofthereasonabledoubtinstruction.WeareonlyrequiredtofollowtheapplicableconstitutionalrulingsoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.SeeState   v.McKay,680S.W.2d447,450(Tenn.1984),cert.denied,470U.S.1034,105   S.Ct.1412(1985);Statev.Bowers,673S.W.2d887,889(Tenn.Crim.App.1984). ld Thisclaimiswithoutmerit. ` Inhisnextassignmentoferror,theappellantassertsthatStatev.Livingston  createdanewconstitutionalruleoflawthatrequiresretroactiveapplication,therefore,entitlinghimtoreviewofhispostconvictionpetition.Specifically,theappellantcontendsthatthetrialcourtadmitted substantialamountsoffreshcomplainttestimonyinviolationofStatev.Livingston. "  ` Anewruleofconstitutionallawexists whenitbreaksnewgroundorimposesanewobligationontheStatesortheFederalGovernment....Toputitdifferently,acaseannouncesanewruleiftheresultwasnotdictatedbyprecedentexistingat 0)("& thetimethedefendantsconvictionbecamefinal.Teaguev.Lane,489U.S.288, *#( 301,109S.Ct.1060,1070(1989)(emphasisinoriginal);Meadowsv.State,849 ,%* S.W.2d748,751(Tenn.1993). ` Atthetimeoftheappellantstrial,thefreshcomplaintdoctrinewasviable.Underthisdoctrine,TennesseelawpermittedboththefactsanddetailsofthecomplainttobeadmittedduringtheStatescaseinchief.SeeStatev.Kendricks, 5.4 891S.W.2d597,603(Tenn.1994);Phillipsv.State,28Tenn.(1Hum.)346(1848).  Thus,statementsmadebychildvictimsofsexualabusewereadmissibleasconfirmationoftheircredibility.SeeClemv.State,No.01C019612CC00519   (Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Nov.17,1997),perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.May l d 11,1998)(citingStatev.Brown,871S.W.2d492,493(Tenn.Crim.App.1993)).In 80 Kendricks,891S.W.2dat603,oursupremecourtmodifiedtheprinciplesgoverning   theuseoffreshcomplaintevidenceincaseswhereanadultisthevictimofasexualcrime.SeeWilsonv.State,No.03C019611CR00409(Tenn.Crim.App.at   Knoxville,Oct.30,1997).Indeed,afterKendricks,nolongerwoulddetailsofthe h` incidentbepermittedtobeintroducedattrialbeforethevictimscredibilitywasattacked.Kendricks,891S.W.2dat603.Thisholding,however,didnotaffectthe  admissibilityofthefactofthecomplaint.Id.Oneyearafteritsdecisionin  Kendricks,thesupremecourtabolishedthefreshcomplaintdoctrine,initsentirety,  incasesinvolvingchildvictims.  #  4      ׀SeeLivingston,907S.W.2dat395. d\  ` PriorpanelsofthiscourthaveheldthatneitherKendricksnorLivingston ! establishedanewconstitutionalruleoflaw.SeeWattsv.State,No.01C019711 #  CC00533(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Dec.9,1998)(Livingstondoesnotcreate %" newruleconstitutionallaw);Wilson,No.03C019611CR00409(Kendricksdoes `'X $ notcreatenewruleconstitutionallaw).Rather,bothKendricksandLivingston ,)$"& merelymodifyexistingevidentiaryprinciplesgoverningfreshcomplainttestimony.SeeWatts,No.01C019711CC00533;Wilson,No.03C019611CR00409.We ,%* canfindnologicalreasontodifferfromthepreviousholdingsofthiscourt.Accordingly,weconcludethatStatev.Livingstondidnotannounceanewruleof \0T). constitutionallawwhichwouldentitletheappellanttopostconvictionreviewofhisallegations. 5.4  ` Forthereasonssetforthabove,weconcludethatthepostconvictioncourtproperlydismissedtheappellantspetitionforpostconvictionreliefastimebarredasneitherargumentuponwhichtheappellantreliesestablishesanexceptiontothethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsperiod.Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.KKL `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:____________________________________LMLjamedLMNJAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.NON,NOP,PQPjUPQRJudge____________________________________JRSRARSTOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JudgeT