ÿWPCe0 7# U: %W 0 ]w@a4¡µ 0HÄ 0D P 0JX 0T¢ 0^ö 0hT 0r¼ 0|. 0†ª 00 1uÀ 0d5 0@™ D3Ù B U*)B)SDC| AM¿ AQ Æ] 0D# 0Dg D/« BÚâ÷QÙ2*™\‘õކ'v~)vÓ’*˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ Ÿ D  ¡ D¢ D£ U¤ D¥ D¦ § D¨ Ó€äzz!3|x¨ (ø(3QÒ$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÃXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò$$$$'ÿÿdxd d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd ØÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òAprilÏ28,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó GÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔFor€purposes€of€clarification,€we€note€that€in€various€portions€of€the€record,€appellantððs€name€isÏð ðRicky€Smith,ðð€while€in€others,€appellant€is€referred€to€as€ð ðRickey€G.€Smith.ðð€€Previous€opinions€from€thisÏCourt€and€the€supreme€court€involving€this€appellant€caption€his€name€as€Ricky€Smith.€€However,€theÏpetition€and€the€briefs€of€the€parties€here€spell€the€name€including€the€ð ðe.ðð€€As€such,€we€will€maintain€theÏspelling€used€in€the€current€petition.Ì (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔAppellant€also€relies€on€òòRickman€v.€Duttonóó,€864€F.Supp.€686€(M.D.€Tenn.€1994)€as€support€forÏthe€unconstitionality€of€these€instructions.€€Although€the€federal€court€in€òòRickmanóó€found€the€instructionsÏviolated€due€process,€our€supreme€court€continues€to€uphold€substantially€similar€instructions.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€___€U.S.€___,€115€S.Ct.€909,€130ÏL.Ed.2d€791€(1995).€€As€an€inferior€appellate€court,€we€must€abide€by€the€decisions€of€our€supremeÏcourt.€€òòBarger€v.€Brockóó,€535€S.W.2d€337,€341€(Tenn.€1976).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Davisóó,€654€S.W.2d€688,Ï690€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983)€(the€supreme€courtððs€determination€on€an€issue€is€conclusive€and€bindingÏon€this€Court€and€all€other€inferior€courts€of€this€state);€òòPresley€v.€Stateóó,€528€S.W.2d€52,€54€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1975)€(we€may€not€ignore€the€prior€decisions€of€our€supreme€court€and€we€are€bound€by€them).€€AtÏleast€one€other€panel€of€this€Court€has€declined€to€follow€òòRickmanóó€on€this€issue€for€the€same€reason.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòRaymond€L.€Covington€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9606„CC„00250€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,ÏSeptember€30,€1996).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔAppellant€argues€that€he€did€not€become€aware€of€many€of€these€grounds€for€relief€until€he€hadÏaccess€to€police€investigative€files€under€òòCapital€Case€Resource€Center€of€Tennessee,€Inc.€v.€Woodallóó,ÏNo.€01A01„9104„CH„00150€(Tenn.€App.€at€Nashville,€January€29,€1992).€€This€assertion€is€notÏsupported€by€the€record.€€All€of€these€claims€for€relief€were€raised€in€appellantððs€1989€post„convictionÏpetition.€€Thus,€appellant€was€aware€of€these€claims€and€they€did€exist€prior€to€expiration€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.Ô€%XÔÌ ‡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔIn€order€for€a€ground€for€relief€to€be€previously€determined,€the€appellant€must€have€beenÏaccorded€a€full€and€fair€hearing.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„112(a)€(repealed€1995).€€A€full€and€fair€hearingÏoccurs€when€a€petitioner€is€given€an€opportunity€to€present€constitutional€claims€at€a€meaningful€time€andÏin€a€meaningful€manner,€i.e.€without€undue€restriction€on€the€scope€of€the€hearing€or€undue€limitation€onÏthe€introduction€or€presentation€of€evidence.€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€711€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó€___€U.S.€___,€116€S.Ct.€1685,134€L.Ed.2d€787€(1996).€€We€note€that€although€the€trial€courtÏdid€not€accord€appellant€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€his€second€and€third€petitions,€it€did€hold€a€hearing€onÏthe€Stateððs€ð ðmotion€to€dismiss€without€an€evidentiary€hearingðð€in€which€it€heard€the€arguments€ofÏcounsel.€€Dismissal€of€the€petition€followed.€€These€grounds€were€included€in€appellantððs€subsequentÏappeal€to€this€Court,€in€which€we€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€action,€and€also€included€in€his€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court,€which€was€denied.€€As€such,€we€believe€appellant€wasÏaccorded€a€full€and€fair€hearing€on€these€issues€to€permit€a€finding€of€previous€determination.€€òòSeeóóÏòòDonnie€E.€Johnson€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9111„CR„00237€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€March€27,Ï1997)€(finding€that€when€an€issue€is€raised€on€appeal€to€this€Court€and€in€an€application€for€permission€toÏappeal€to€the€supreme€court€and€ruled€upon,€it€may€be€considered€previously€determined).Ì „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€%ôÔSee€Footnote€four€above.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÙ€*ÙßR€(/'A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSON€óóÌÌà@ à€€NOVEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌRICKEY€G.€SMITH,à àà àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9511„CR„00342Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOHN€P.€COLTON,€JR.,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌDavid€C.€Stebbinsà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ330€South€High€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌColumbus,€OH€43215à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMerrilyn€FeirmanÌJohn€G.€Olivaà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ222€Second€Avenue€North,€417à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌNashville,€TN€37201à àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierrottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€M.€Lammey,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJennifer€S.€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneysÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€„€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€ComplexÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€38103ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇœ›à@ àœò òOPINIONó ó›ÌÌÓÓà àThe€appellant,€Rickey€G.€Smith,× ƒ0 ××  ×€appeals€as€of€right€the€denial€in€the€ShelbyÏCounty€Criminal€Court€of€his€fourth€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Finding€no€errorÏin€the€trial€courtððs€order,€we€affirm€the€denial€of€relief.Ìà àA€protracted€procedural€history€surrounds€appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€this€appeal.€€He€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€first€degree€felonyÏmurder€for€the€1982€shooting€death€of€Walter€Allen€occurring€during€the€course€of€aÏrobbery.€€Appellant€was€sentenced€to€death.€€The€only€aggravating€circumstanceÏfound€by€the€jury€was€that€the€murder€was€committed€during€the€perpetration€of€aÏrobbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„2„203(i)(7)€(1982).€€Appellantððs€conviction€andÏsentence€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€695€S.W.2d€954Ï(Tenn.€1985).€€Ìà àAppellant€filed€his€first€post„conviction€petition€on€August€26,€1986€allegingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€constitutional€errors€during€voir€dire,€erroneous€juryÏinstructions,€and€the€unconstitutionality€of€the€Tennessee€Death€Penalty€Act.€€After€anÏevidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€relief€and€this€Court€affirmed€on€directÏappeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòRicky€Goldie€Smith€v.€Stateóó,€No.€69€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,ÍOctober€19,€1988).€€The€supreme€court€denied€appellantððs€application€for€permissionÏto€appeal€on€January€3,€1989.Ìà àOn€February€8,€1989,€appellant€filed€his€second€petition€for€post„convictionÏrelief.€€This€petition€again€alleged€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial€and€onÏappeal€and€set€forth€ten€specific€instances€of€conduct.€€The€petition€also€allegedÏprosecutorial€misconduct€at€both€the€guilt€and€sentencing€phases€of€the€trial,€as€wellÏas€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€exclusion€for€cause€of€certain€jurors.€€Six€months€later,Ïappellant€filed€a€third€pro€se€post„conviction€petition,€raising€seven€issues€whichÏincluded€thirty„six€sub„issues.€€It€was€subsequently€consolidated€with€the€secondÏpetition€in€the€trial€court.€€The€trial€court€denied€both€petitions€after€hearing€theÏargument€of€counsel€and€this€Court€again€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.ÏRicky€Goldie€Smithóó,€No.€11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€June€5,€1991).€€TheÏsupreme€court€denied€his€application€for€permission€to€appeal€on€SeptemberÏ23,1991.€€€€Ìà àIn€1993,€the€State€petitioned€the€supreme€court€for€an€execution€date€inÏappellantððs€case.€€The€supreme€court€denied€the€petition€and€granted€appellantððsÏopposing€motion.€€It€ordered€that€an€attorney€be€appointed€to€assist€appellant€in€filingÏa€post„conviction€petition€raising€the€impermissible€application€of€the€felony„murderÏaggravating€circumstance.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Middlebrooksóó,€840€S.W.2d€317€(Tenn.Ï1992).€€After€the€appointment€of€counsel,€a€lengthy€petition€was€filed€in€the€trial€courtÍon€January€26,€1994.€€Thereafter,€upon€appellantððs€motion€for€partial€summaryÏjudgment,€the€trial€court€vacated€appellantððs€death€sentence€and€imposed€a€lifeÏsentence€premised€upon€the€òòMiddlebrooksóó€error.€€Appellant€then€filed€an€amendedÏpetition,€reiterating€all€claims€in€the€original€petition€which€did€not€pertain€to€his€deathÏsentence.€€The€trial€court€summarily€denied€appellantððs€petition€without€conductingÏan€evidentiary€hearing.€€In€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€all€grounds€were€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,€and€also€that€some€ofÏappellantððs€grounds€were€waived€or€previously€determined.€€Ìà àOn€appeal,€the€appellant€argues€that:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)à àthe€definition€of€reasonable€doubt€provided€to€the€juryÏimpermissibly€relieved€the€state€of€its€burden€of€proof;€ÌÌà8 à(2)à àthe€indictment€failed€to€provide€appellant€notice€of€the€elementsÏof€the€underlying€felony€with€which€he€was€charged€and€the€juryÏinstructions€served€as€a€constructive€amendment€to€the€indictment;ÌÌà8 à(3)à àthe€jury€instructions€were€inadequate€and€improper€as€to€theÏmandatory€presumptions€on€the€element€of€malice€in€first€degreeÏœmurder;ÌÌ›à8 à(4)à àappellant€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial;ÌÌà8 à(5)à àappellant€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€appellateÏcounsel€for€failure€to€raise€and€preserve€significant€issues;ÌÌà8 à(6)à àappellant€was€denied€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€hisÏprevious€post„conviction€petitions;ÌÌà8 à(7)à àappellant€was€denied€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€because€the€StateÏexercised€peremptory€challenges€in€a€manner€to€exclude€members€ofÏappellantððs€race;€ÌÌà8 à(8)à àappellant€was€denied€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€because€jurorsÏwere€excused€for€cause€based€upon€their€opposition€to€the€deathÏpenalty;€ÌÌà8 à(9)à àappellantððs€rights€against€self„incrimination€were€violated€by€theÏcourtððs€limitations€on€the€presentation€of€evidence€concerning€theÏreliability€of€the€confession€offered€in€evidence€against€appellant;€ÌÌà8 à(10)à àappellantððs€constitutional€rights€were€violated€by€counselððs€failureÏto€obtain€the€expert€and€investigative€assistance€necessary€to€prepareÏan€adequate€defense€and€by€post„conviction€counselððs€failure€to€obtainÏthese€services€to€provide€effective€representation€on€post„convictionÏrelief;€ÌÌà8 à(11)à àappellant€was€denied€his€right€to€a€fair€trial€due€to€theÏœprosecution's›€failure€to€disclose€favorable€evidence;€ÌÌà8 à(12)à àappellant€was€denied€a€fair€trial€by€the€prosecutionððs€failure€toÏreveal€any€promises€or€benefits€bestowed€upon€witnesses;€andÌÌà8 à(13)à àthe€State€failed€to€comply€with€its€statutory€mandate€to€file€theÏrecord€in€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓFinding€no€merit€to€any€of€appellantððs€issues,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.Ìà àUnder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„102,€a€three€year€statute€ofÏlimitations€applied€to€appellantððs€post„conviction€claims.€€Due€to€prospectiveÏapplication€of€this€limitation€period,€it€did€not€expire€until€July€1,€1989.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó€òòSmithÏv.€Stateóó,€757€S.W.2d€683,€685€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€òòState€v.€Masuccióó,€754€S.W.2dÍ90,€91€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988);€and€òòAbston€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€487,€488€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1988).€€Appellantððs€petition,€filed€almost€five€years€after€expiration€of€theÏstatute,€is€clearly€time„barred.€€Ìà àWe€recognize€that€in€limited€circumstances€due€process€will€prevent€the€strictÏapplication€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€post„conviction€cases.€€The€statutoryÏlimitations€period€on€post„conviction€suits€violates€due€process€only€if€it€denies€theÏpetitioner€ð ða€reasonable€opportunity€to€have€the€claimed€issue€heard€and€decided.ðð€ÏòòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204,€208€(Tenn.€1992).€€Our€supreme€court€has€recentlyÏclarified€and€explained€the€parameters€of€the€òòBurfordóó€rule.€€òòSeeóó€òòCaldwell€v.€Stateóó,Ï917€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.€1996),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó€___€U.S.€___,€117€S.Ct.€148,€136€L.Ed.2dÏ94€(1996)€and€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€determiningÏwhether€a€petitioner€should€be€excepted€from€the€post„conviction€statute€ofÏlimitations,€a€three„step€analysis€is€necessary:€(1)€determine€when€the€limitationsÏperiod€would€normally€have€begun€to€run;€(2)€determine€whether€the€ground€for€reliefÏactually€arose€after€the€limitations€period€would€normally€have€commenced;€and€(3)€ifÏthe€grounds€are€ð ðlater„arising,ðð€determine€if,€under€the€facts€of€the€case,€a€strictÏapplication€of€the€limitations€period€would€effectively€deny€the€petitioner€aÏreasonable€opportunity€to€present€the€claim.€€òòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301.€€EachÏcircumstance€must€be€satisfied€in€order€to€obtain€relief€from€the€statute€of€limitations.€ÏWith€this€in€mind,€we€now€turn€to€appellantððs€claims.€Ìà àAppellant€first€argues€that€the€jury€instructions€given€on€reasonable€doubtÏviolated€due€process€by€impermissibly€relieving€the€State€of€its€burden€of€proof.€€HeÏasserts€that€this€claim€is€not€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations€because€it€is€premisedÏon€United€States€Supreme€Court€authority€decided€in€1994€cautioning€against€theÏð ðmoral€certaintyðð€language€used€in€the€reasonable€doubt€instruction€at€his€trial.€€òòSeeóóÏòòVictor€v.€Nebraskaóó€and€òòSandoval€v.€Californiaóó,€511€U.S.€1,€114€S.Ct.€1239,€127ÏL.Ed.2d€583€(1994).€€He€claims€that€this€ground€arose€after€the€limitations€periodÏexpired.€€This€identical€issue€has€been€previously€addressed€by€this€Court€andÏrejected.€€This€Court€has€found€that€instructions€almost€identical€to€those€inÏappellantððs€case€were€not€violative€of€due€process€and€further€that€this€claim€providesÏno€ground€for€relief€from€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations.€€òòPettyjohn€v.€Stateóó,Ï885€S.W.2d€364,€365€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòCharles€Walton€Wright€v.ÏStateóó,€No.€01C01„9506„CR„00211€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€March€20,€1997);ÏœòòMichael€Eugene›€Sample€and€Larry€McKay€v.€Stateóó,€No.€02C01„9505„CR„00129Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€September€30,€1996),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1997);€òòJames€David€Carter€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9605„CC„00179€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€July€15,€œ1996),€òòpermóó.€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òògrantedóó€(Tenn.,€Dec.€9,€1996)€(finding›€thatÏpost„conviction€claims€premised€on€òòVictoróó€and€òòSandovalóó€were€insufficient€to€createÏexception€to€statute€of€limitations€where€instructions€did€not€violate€due€process).€ÍAppellant€is€unable€to€demonstrate€an€exception€to€the€statute€of€limitations.€€ThisÏclaim€is€time„barred.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€Ìà àMoreover,€we€note,€as€did€the€trial€court,€that€this€ground€for€relief€is€waived€forÏfailure€to€present€it€in€an€earlier€proceeding.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„112(b)Ï(repealed€1995).€€This€ground€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal,€nor€in€any€of€the€threeÏearlier€post„conviction€petitions€filed€on€behalf€of€appellant.€€This€gives€rise€to€aÏpresumption€of€waiver.€€òòId.óó€€€The€supreme€court€has€directed€us€to€evaluate€waiverÏusing€an€objective€standard€under€which€a€petitioner€is€bound€by€the€action€orÏinaction€of€his€attorney.€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.óóÏòòdeniedóó€___€U.S.€___,€116€S.Ct.€1685,€134€L.Ed.2d€787€(1996).€€Appellantððs€mereÏassertions€that€he€did€not€personally,€knowingly,€and€understandingly€fail€to€raise€aÏground€for€relief€is€insufficient€to€overcome€the€rebuttable€presumption€of€waiver.€€òòId.óó€ÏMoreover,€œa€petitionerððs›€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€post„convictionÏcounsel€will€not€rebut€the€presumption€of€waiver.€€òòId.óó€€Therefore,€we€must€consider€theÍissue€waived€for€failure€of€appellantððs€counsel€to€raise€this€issue€in€a€priorÏproceeding.€€Ìà àAppellant€next€contends€that€the€indictment€charging€him€was€defective€in€thatÏit€did€not€include€the€elements€of€the€underlying€felony€of€robbery€and€that€the€juryÏinstructions€defining€robbery€acted€as€a€constructive€amendment€to€the€indictment€inÏviolation€of€his€constitutional€rights.€€Appellant€provides€no€justification€for€hisÏtardiness€in€raising€this€claim€in€a€post„conviction€petition.€€This€ground€did€not€ariseÏafter€the€limitations€period€had€begun€to€run€as€required€by€òòSandsóó.€€Therefore,€it€isÏbarred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Ìà àIn€addition€to€being€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations,€we€must€also€considerÏthis€ground€waived€for€failure€to€include€it€in€an€earlier€petition.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð40„30„112(b)(1)€(repealed€1995).€€The€trial€court€found€that€although€this€ground€forÏrelief€existed,€it€was€not€raised€on€direct€appeal€nor€in€any€of€the€three€earlier€post„conviction€petitions€filed€on€behalf€of€appellant.€€This€gives€rise€to€a€presumption€ofÏwaiver€and€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€determination.€€òòId.óó€€Ìà àAppellantððs€issues€three€through€eleven€are€presented€as€a€comprehensiveÏlist€in€his€brief€without€citation€to€case€authority.€€Appellant€alleges€that€he€is€at€leastÏentitled€to€a€hearing€on€these€claims€and€that€they€are€not€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€According€to€appellant,€these€claims€are€not€time„barred€becauseÏappellantððs€interest€in€life€outweighs€any€possible€state€interest€in€denying€hisÍconstitutional€claims;€counsel€appointed€by€the€State€was€not€effective;€appellant€hadÏno€opportunity€to€choose€his€attorney€nor€was€he€able€to€investigate€and€litigateÏthese€claims€on€his€own€behalf€because€he€is€incarcerated€and€indigent€and€hasÏbeen€indigent€throughout€the€course€of€all€prior€proceedings;€and€he€lacked€the€legalÏand€factual€knowledge€necessary€to€raise€such€claims€earlier.€€These€reasons€areÏnot€valid€ones€for€obviating€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSeeóó€òòSandsóó,Ï903€S.W.2d€at€301.€€Appellant€goes€on€to€state€that€these€claims€fall€within€anÏexception€to€the€statute€of€limitations,€but€fails€to€explain€what€exception.€€He€merelyÏasserts€that€due€process€of€law€permits€him€to€avoid€application€of€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€We€find€that€appellant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€from€the€statute€of€limitationsÏon€any€of€these€claims.Ìà àEnumerated€issues€three,€four,€five,€seven,€eight,€nine,€and€ten€are€barred€byÏthe€statute€of€limitations€and€fall€within€no€exception.€€These€alleged€grounds€for€reliefÏare€not€later„arising€and€fail€to€satisfy€the€test€set€forth€in€òòSandsóó.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Additionally,€weÏfind€that€these€very€issues€were€raised€in€prior€petitions€and€must€be€consideredÍpreviously€determined.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).€€Issue€sixÏpertaining€to€the€effectiveness€of€post„conviction€counsel€is€also€without€merit.€€WeÏagree€with€the€trial€court€that€appellant€has€no€constitutional€right€to€post„convictionÏcounsel€and€may€not€assert€a€claim€based€on€the€ineffective€assistance€of€post„conviction€counsel.€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€712€(Tenn.€1995),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóóÏÑ ° ÑÑ  Ñ___€U.S.€___,€116€S.Ct.€1685,134€L.Ed.2d€787€(1996).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912ÏS.W.2d€689,€696€(Tenn.€1995).Ì€€à àFinally,€appellantððs€issues€eleven€and€twelve€pertaining€to€exculpatoryÏevidence€and€promises€made€to€witnesses€do€not€entitle€appellant€to€relief.€€As€withÏall€other€claims,€these€are€barred€by€the€limitations€period.€€Appellant€presentedÏthese€issues€in€his€third€petition,€which€was€filed€prior€to€the€expiration€of€the€statuteÏof€limitations.€€Therefore,€these€grounds€are€not€ð ðlater„arisingðð€as€required€for€anÏexception€to€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297,Ï301€(Tenn.€1995).€€Because€they€were€raised€in€appellantððs€third€petition,€we€mustÍalso€consider€them€previously€determined.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„112(b)Ï(repealed€1995).× ƒ4 ××  ×Ìà àLastly,€appellant€argues€that€the€State€erred€by€failing€to€file€in€the€trial€courtÏthe€necessary€portions€of€the€record€as€required€by€statute.€€The€Post„Conviction€ActÏrequires€that€if€the€petition€does€not€include€parts€of€the€records€or€transcripts€that€areÏmaterial€to€the€questions€raised,€the€district€attorney€is€empowered€to€obtain€them€atÏthe€expense€of€the€State€and€file€them€with€the€responsive€pleading€or€within€aÏreasonable€time€thereafter.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„30„114(b)€(repealed€1995).€€DueÏto€the€exemplary€work€of€appellantððs€counsel,€an€extremely€thorough€and€detailedÏpetition€for€relief€was€filed€in€the€trial€court.€€This€petition€included€an€itemized€list€ofÏissues€previously€raised€in€other€petitions€and€appeals.€€In€addition,€the€trial€courtÏhad€access€to€the€files€containing€appellantððs€previous€petitions€and€the€decisions€ofÏthis€Court€and€apparently€relied€on€that€information.€€The€trial€courtððs€order€refers€toÏappellantððs€previous€petitions€and€provides€a€comprehensive€list€of€the€issues€raisedÏin€each€one.€€Ìà àBecause€the€trial€courtððs€decisions€were€based€upon€procedural€defenses€toÏthe€claims,€we€do€not€find€that€there€were€other€records€or€transcripts€material€to€theÏquestions€raised.€€The€trial€court€had€before€it€sufficient€information€to€determine€theÏquestions€of€the€statute€of€limitations,€waiver€and€previous€determination.€€AlthoughÍwe€encourage€all€parties€to€act€in€conformity€with€the€statutory€mandate,€we€do€notÏfind€that€the€State€violated€its€statutory€duty€in€appellantððs€case.Ìà àIn€sum,€appellant€has€presented€no€claim€deserving€of€post„conviction€relief.€ÏEvery€claim€presented€is€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Appellant€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€that€any€claim€is€later„arising€or€that€he€has€been€precluded€aÏreasonable€opportunity€to€present€it€in€a€state€forum.€€Moreover,€as€we€haveÏspecified,€some€claims€have€been€waived€for€failure€to€present€them€in€an€earlierÏpetition€and€many€have€been€previously€determined.€€Appellant€has€had€numerousÏopportunities€to€present€his€claims€before€the€trial€court€and€this€Court.€€As€a€result€ofÏthis€petition,€the€trial€court€vacated€his€death€sentence€and€imposed€a€sentence€of€lifeÏimprisonment.€€We€believe€that€appellantððs€rights€to€due€process€have€beenÏrespected€and€preserved€by€the€courts€of€this€State.€€The€judgment€of€the€trial€courtÏdenying€post„conviction€relief€is€affirmed.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€Judge