ÿWPC· …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýw@ 4W k z 0§‚ 0D) U:m 0J§ 0Tñ 0^E 0h£ 0r 0|} 0†ù 0 1u 0d„ BèU>U*CB)mDC– D3Ù AM Y 0@o¯v~ÁvÓ? AOÆa 0D' D/k Bš˜HP LaserJet 4M PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular ¾$¿$UÀ$UÁ$UÂ$UÃ$UÄ$UÅ$UÆ$UÇ$Ó€U”$3|xÒ$(W(2¾•$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€X«oXXXÔà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd""""'ÿÿdxd€-)Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌò òMay€27,€1998ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€'ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÔ€'Ôà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€court€vacated€a€conviction€for€using€a€firearm€to€commit€kidnapping.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€'ÔòòÑ7€«oXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßR€+,)A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEE̛̜à@ àAT€KNOXVILLEóớ̜à@ àJANUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÌœÌRONALD›€DAVID€DUKES€andà à*à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9703„CC„00112ÌœÌEDGAR›€VIRGIL€DUKES,€III,à àœ*à àUNION€COUNTY›ÌœÌà àà àAppellants,à àà à*à àÌÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Lee€Asbury,€JudgeÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„conviction)ÌÌà àà àAppellee.à àà à*à àÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellants:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:óóÌÌDouglas›€A.€Trantà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAttorney€for€Ronald€David€Dukesà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ900€S.€Gay€Streetà àà àà àà àÌSuite€1502à àà àà àà àà àSandy€C.€PatrickÌKnoxville,€TN€€37902à àà àà àCordell€Hull€Building,€Second€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌMichael€L.€DeBuskà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌAttorney€for€Edgar€Virgil€Dukes,€IIIÌ5344€North€Broadwayà àà àà àClifton€H.€SextonÌKnoxville,€TN€€37918à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€10Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àHuntsville,€TN€€37756ÌÌÌÌœÌÌOPINION›€FILED:€__________________ÌÌÌœÌÌAFFIRMED›ÌÌÌœÌÌGARY›€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓÑ7€‡XXdìXdæ7Ñà@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€petitioners,€Ronald€David€Dukes€and€Edgar€Virgil€Dukes,€III,€wereÏconvicted€of€the€robbery,€kidnapping€and€murder€of€the€victim,€Hollis€Kitts.€€The€trialÏcourt€ordered€Ronald€Dukes€to€serve€consecutive€life€sentences€for€first€degreeÏfelony€murder€and€armed€robbery;€a€sentence€of€life€plus€five€years€was€imposedÏfor€kidnapping€to€commit€robbery€by€the€use€of€a€firearm.€€Edgar€Dukes€receivedÏidentical€sentences€with€the€exception€that€the€terms€are€to€be€served€concurrently.Ìà àà àÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€petitioners€claim€that€they€are€entitled€to€aÏnew€trial€or€reduction€in€sentence€because€the€state€suppressed€exculpatoryÏevidence€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€In€the€alternative,Ïthe€petitioners€argue€that€the€facts€presented€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€wouldÏhave€warranted€the€grant€of€a€motion€to€œreopen€as€provided€by€statute.›€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217.€€We€disagree€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€victim€operated€a€sporting€goods€store€in€Union€County.€€OnÏDecember€23,€1976,€the€petitioners€and€their€accomplice,€Robert€Sands,€who€wasÏtried€separately,€robbed€the€store€of€cash€and€firearms€and€abducted€the€victim.€ÏœThe›€body€was€discovered€several€days€later€along€a€road€in€Knox€County.€€œTheÏvictim€had›€been€shot€once€in€the€head.€€The€petitioners€confessed€to€theirÍparticipation€in€an€"insurance€scam"€which,€they€claimed,€included€the€victim€as€aÏperpetrator.€€Later,€at€trial,€each€of€the€petitioners€denied€being€present€when€theÏvictim€was€robbed,€œkidnapped,€and€shot€to€death.›ÌÌà àà àOn€direct€appeal,€this€court€affirmed€the€convictions.× ƒ. ××  ×€€òòDukes€v.€Stateóó,Ï578€S.W.2d€659€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1979).€€On€April€12,Ï1985,€the€petitioners€filed€their€first€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief€allegingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€and€due€process€violations.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€first€post„conviction€hearing,€Ronald€Dukes€testified€that€his€trialÏcounsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€use€his€cousin,€Larry€Sharp,€as€a€witness.€€€HeÏclaimed€that€Sharp€would€have€testified€that€Sands€admitted€to€killing€the€victim.€ÏSharp,€a€witness€at€the€evidentiary€hearing,€testified€that€he€had€a€telephoneÏconversation€with€Sands€prior€to€their€trial€during€which€Sands€admittedÏresponsibility€for€the€murder.€€Sharp€testified€that€he€had€been€prepared€to€give€thisÏtestimony€at€their€trial.€€Attorney€William€Davidson,€trial€counsel€for€the€petitioners,Ïrecalled€that€until€the€trial€œbegan,›€the€defense€theory€was€that€the€robbery€andÏkidnapping€was€an€"insurance€job"€and€that€the€victim€"was€in€on€it€also,€and€thatÍMr.€Sands€had€planned€all€this€....€They€had€no€knowledge€whatsoever€that€Mr.ÏSands€was€going€to€shoot€the€man€in€the€back€of€the€head€...."€€Davidson€testifiedÏthat€when€the€trial€began,€the€petitioners€insisted€on€a€change€of€strategy€to€an€alibiÏdefense,€a€theory€that€conflicted€with€the€petitioners'€pretrial€statements€to€lawÏenforcement.€€Davidson€expressed€particular€concern€because€the€alibi€defenseÏwas€contrary€to€the€results€of€his€own€investigation.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€initialÏpetition€for€post€conviction€relief.€€This€court€affirmed€and€the€supreme€court€deniedÏreview.€€òòEdgar€Virgil€Dukes,€III,€and€Ronald€David€Dukes€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€25,Ïslip€op.€at€1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Aug.€25,€1986),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.ÏNov.€24,€1986).€€ÌÌà àà àOn€December€17,€1987,€Ronald€Dukes€filed€a€second€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€alleging€double€jeopardy€and€òòBradyóó€violations.€€The€trial€courtÏentered€a€summary€dismissal.€€On€appeal,€this€court€found€the€double€jeopardyÏclaim€to€be€previously€determined€but€reversed€and€remanded€for€a€hearing€on€theÏÑ7€=¾XXdæXXdì7ÑòòBradyóó€claim.€€òòState€v.€Ronald€David€Dukesóó,€C.C.A.€No.€26,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€at€Knoxville,€Apr.€4,€1989).€€€In€May€of€1989,€Edgar€Dukes€filed€a€secondÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€alleging€similar€constitutional€violations.€€Some€sixÏyears€later€and€after€repeated€continuances,€a€consolidated€evidentiary€hearingÏwas€held,€after€which€the€trial€court€denied€relief.€Although€Ronald€Dukes€filed€aÍtimely€notice€of€appeal,€Edgar€Dukes€did€not€file€his€notice€within€the€statutory€timeÏperiod.€€This€court€may,€however,€waive€the€timely€filing€of€the€notice€in€the€interestÏof€justice.€€òòSmith€v.€Stateóó,€873€S.W.2d€5€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€ÌÌà àà àà@ àIÌà àà àThe€petitioners€contend€that€the€state€failed€to€disclose€exculpatoryÏinformation€in€violation€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€They€allege€twoÏseparate€violations:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(a)à àthe€state€did€not€inform€the€petitioners€prior€to€trialÏthat€Sands€was€a€suspect€in€two€other€murdersÏaccording€to€a€1977€report;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(b)à àthe€state€had€an€obligation€to€inform€petitionersÏabout€statements€given€by€James€Potter€to€FBI€officialsÏin€1981,€some€four€years€after€trial.ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àAlthough€we€address€the€petitioners'€issues€on€the€merits,€we€agreeÏwith€the€trial€court's€assessment€that€the€òòBradyóó€issues€have€been€waived.€€TheÏpost„conviction€statute€in€effect€when€these€petitions€were€filed€defines€waiver:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à(b)(1)€€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitionerÏknowingly€and€understandingly€failed€to€present€it€forÏdetermination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€haveÏbeen€presented.ÌÌà à(2)€€There€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€aÏground€for€relief€not€raised€in€any€such€proceedingÏwhich€was€held€was€waived.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àOur€supreme€court€has€held€that€"the€rebuttable€presumption€ofÏwaiver€is€not€overcome€by€an€allegation€that€the€petitioner€did€not€personally,Ïknowingly,€and€understandingly€fail€to€raise€a€ground€for€relief."€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,Ï911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995).€€"Waiver€in€the€post„conviction€context€is€to€beÏdetermined€by€an€objective€standard€under€which€a€petitioner€is€bound€by€theÏaction€or€inaction€of€his€attorney."€€òòId.óó€€Both€the€report€and€Potter's€statement€wereÏin€the€possession€of€TBI€agents€in€1983.€€The€petitioners'€first€post„convictionÏpetitions€were€filed€two€years€later.€€The€petitioners€have€not€presented€anyÏevidence€to€rebut€the€presumption€of€waiver.€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€landmark€case€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€ruled€that€the€prosecutor€has€a€duty€to€furnish€exculpatory€evidenceÏto€the€defendant.€€373€U.S.€at€87.€€Exculpatory€evidence€may€pertain€to€the€guilt€orÏinnocence€of€the€accused€and/or€the€punishment€which€may€be€imposed€if€theÏaccused€is€convicted€of€the€crime.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228€(Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.€1992).€€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòBradyóó€reasoned€that€a€fair€trial€and€a€just€resultÏcould€not€be€obtained€œwhen,€at€the€time€of€trial,€the›€prosecution€œsuppressed›Ïinformation€favorable€to€the€accused.€€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87„88.€ÌÌà àà àAny€"suppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€anÏaccused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€eitherÏto€guilt€or€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution."€ÏòòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87.€€This€duty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€favorable€informationÏirrespective€of€whether€the€evidence€is€admissible.€€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2dÏ533€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969).€€Information€useful€for€impeaching€a€witness€isÏconsidered€favorable€information€that€the€prosecutor€may€not€withhold.€€òòGiglio€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150€(1972).€€And,€while€òòBradyóó€does€not€require€the€state€toÏinvestigate€for€the€defendant,€it€does€burden€the€prosecution€with€the€responsibilityÏof€disclosing€statements€of€witnesses€favorable€to€the€defense.€€òòState€v.€Reynoldsóó,Ï671€S.W.2d€854,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€The€duty€does€not€extend€toÏinformation€that€the€defense€already€possesses€or€is€able€to€obtain€or€to€informationÏnot€in€the€possession€or€control€of€the€prosecution.€€òòBanks€v.€Stateóó,€556€S.W.2d€88,Ï90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).ÌÌà àà àBefore€this€court€may€find€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€theÍfollowing€elements€must€be€established:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ1.à àThe€defendant€must€have€requested€theÏinformation€(unless€the€evidence€is€obviouslyÏexculpatory,€in€which€case€the€State€is€bound€to€releaseÏthe€information€whether€requested€or€not);ÌÌ2.à à[t]he€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;ÌÌ3.€à à[t]he€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€theÏaccused;€andÌÌ4.à à[t]he€information€must€have€been€material.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.€1995)€(as€amended€on€rehearing).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòEdginóó,€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€following€standard€forÏmateriality:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[T]here€is€constitutional€error€"if€there€is€a€reasonableÏprobability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€theÏdefense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÏdifferent."€...€"[T]he€touchstone€of€materiality€is€aÏ'reasonable€probability'€of€a€different€result,€and€theÏadjective€is€important.€€The€question€is€not€whether€theÏdefendant€would€more€likely€than€not€have€received€aÏdifferent€verdict€with€the€evidence,€but€whether€in€itsÏabsence€he€received€a€fair€trial,€understood€as€a€trialÏresulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence.€€AÏ'reasonable€probability'€of€a€different€result€isÏaccordingly€shown€when€the€government's€evidentiaryÏsuppression€'undermines€confidence€in€the€outcome€ofÏthe€trial.'"ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390„91€(quoting€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1566Í(1995)).ÌÌà àà àTo€prevail€on€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€a€petitioner€mustÏprove€a€constitutional€violation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏSpurlockóó,€874€S.W.2d€602,€610€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€court€is€bound€byÏthe€post„conviction€court's€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÏpost„conviction€court.€€Moreover,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnessesÏand€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony€are€for€resolution€by€theÏpost„conviction€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).Ìà àÌà@ à(a)Ìà àà àThe€petitioners€claim€that€the€state€suppressed€a€report,€obtained€byÏKnoxville€police€on€January€3,€1977,€€implicating€Sands€in€a€murder€in€KentuckyÏand€a€murder€in€Indiana.€€Sands,€who€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,Ïdenied€any€involvement€in€the€murders€and€stated€he€had€never€been€investigatedÏin€the€matters.€€The€petitioners€testified€they€only€recently€learned€of€the€report.€ÏAfter€hearing€testimony€and€considering€the€report,€the€trial€court€ruled€that€theÍreport€was€likely€inadmissable€and€not€exculpatory.€€ÌÌà àà àApplying€the€principles€of€òòEdginóó,€we€conclude€that€the€petitionersÏmade€a€general,€pre„trial€discovery€request€for€exculpatory€or€favorable€informationÏand€that€the€state€suppressed€the€report.€€If,€œhowever,›€we€were€to€find€the€report€toÏbe€favorable€to€the€petitioners,€it€does€not€matter.€€Sands'€suspected€involvement€inÏother€murders€was€irrelevant€in€this€case.€€Moreover,€Sands€did€not€testify€atÏpetitioners'€trial,€thus€he€had€no€opportunity€to€give€damaging€testimony€thatÏrequired€impeachment.€€Any€suppression€of€the€report€by€the€state€would€have€hadÏno€effect€on€the€fairness€of€the€trial.ÌÌà@ à(b)Ìà àà àThe€petitioners'€second€claim€concerns€a€statement€made€to€FBIÏofficials€by€James€Potter€four€years€after€the€trial.€€In€his€statement,€Potter€revealedÏthat€while€they€were€cellmates,€Sands€had€admitted€to€him€that€the€petitioners€knewÏnothing€about€his€plan€to€kill€the€victim.€€A€memorandum€indicates€that€the€TBI€hadÏPotter's€information€as€early€as€March€16,€1983.ÌÌà àà àAt€their€hearing,€the€petitioners€denied€involvement€in€the€murder€ofÏthe€victim.€€They€admitted€to€giving€false€testimony€at€trial.€€They€acknowledgedÍthat,€at€the€time€of€trial,€their€cousin€Larry€Sharp€could€have€testified€to€similarÏstatements€by€Sands€in€which€Sands€claimed€responsibility€for€the€murder€but€thatÏSharp€did€not€testify.€€The€state€questioned€Ronald€Dukes€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àòòGeneral:óóà0 àSo,€what€„€of€what€importance€is€what€Mr.ÏPotter€had€to€say€„€Ìà8 àà8 àòòPetitioner:óóà0 àWell,€he€„Ìà8 àà8 àòòGeneral:óóà0 àI€mean,€he€says€the€same€thing€that€LarryÏSharp€would€have€said,€and€we€talkedÏabout€Larry€Sharp€at€the€first€post„conviction,€it€hasn't€changed€what€heÏknows,€isn't€that€what€Potter€says€„€thatÏSands€actually€killed€Mr.€Kitts?Ìà8 àà8 àòòPetitioner:óóà0 àWell,€Mr.€Sands€did€kill€Mr.€Kitts.€€It€was€„Ïyou€know,€we€feel€like€if€the€truth€had€beenÏpresented€to€the€jury,€all€of€the€truth,€notÏjust€a€part€of€it€„€if€all€of€the€truth€had€beenÏpresented€to€the€jury,€that€moreÏconsideration€would€have€been€given€....ÓÓÌThe€post„conviction€trial€court€found€no€òòBradyóó€violation€as€to€their€trial€because€theÏevidence€was€obtained€by€the€state€"well€after€the€original€Dukes€trial."€€The€courtÏalso€held€that€failure€to€provide€the€information€before€the€first€post„convictionÏhearing€was€not€a€òòBradyóó€violation€because€the€information€was€not€exculpatory€andÏthat€the€jury€did€not€hear€all€of€the€facts€as€a€direct€result€of€the€petitioners'€decisionÏto€perjure€themselves€at€trial.€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioners€contend€that€the€state€shirked€its€continuing€duty,€post„trial,€to€reveal€material€exculpatory€evidence,€i.e.,€the€substance€of€Potter'sÏstatement€to€the€FBI.€€They€rely€on€the€ABA€Standards€of€Criminal€Justice€and€theÏTennessee€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€ÌÌà àà àRelief€under€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€may€be€granted€onlyÏwhen€there€has€been€an€abridgment€of€a€constitutional€right€during€the€course€ofÏthe€guilt€or€sentencing€phase€of€the€trial.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„105€(repealedÏ1995).€€òòSeeóó€òòAlley€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€138,€148€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€TheÏruling€in€òòBradyóó€does€not€necessarily€impose€a€duty€on€the€state€to€disclose€duringÏpost„conviction€proceedings€exculpatory€evidence€discovered€by€the€state€yearsÏafter€trial.€€Even€if€such€a€duty€exists,€there€is€no€error€here€because€òòBradyóó€does€notÏapply€to€evidence€the€defense€already€possesses.€€òòBanksóó,€556€S.W.2d€at€90.€€InÏthis€instance,€the€petitioners€admitted€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€SharpÏwould€have€testified€at€trial€to€similar€declarations€by€Sands.€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àLastly,€the€petitioners€argue€that€this€petition€should€be€considered€aÏmotion€to€reopen€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(4).€€The€petitionersÏhave€not€satisfied€the€procedural€requirements€for€motions€to€reopen€under€theÏPost„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(c).€€AÍmotion€to€reopen€is€a€limited€avenue€for€relief€and€is€only€appropriate€as€follows:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à€€€(1)€€The€claim€in€the€motion€is€based€upon€a€final€rulingÏof€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutional€rightÏthat€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial,€ifÏretrospective€application€of€that€right€is€required.€€SuchÏmotion€must€be€filed€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€ruling€ofÏthe€highest€state€appellate€court€or€the€United€StatesÏsupreme€court€establishing€a€constitutional€right€thatÏwas€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial;€òòoróóÌà8 àà8 à€€€(2)€The€claim€in€the€motion€is€based€upon€scientificÏevidence€establishing€that€such€petitioner€is€actuallyÏinnocent€of€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€theÏpetitioner€was€convicted;€òòoróóÌà8 àà8 à€€€(3)€The€claim€asserted€in€the€motion€seeks€relief€from€aÏsentence€that€was€enhanced€because€of€a€previousÏconviction€and€such€conviction€in€the€case€in€which€theÏclaim€is€asserted€was€not€a€guilty€plea€with€an€agreedÏsentence,€and€the€previous€conviction€has€subsequentlyÏbeen€held€to€be€invalid,€in€which€case€the€motion€mustÏbe€filed€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€finality€of€the€rulingÏholding€the€previous€conviction€invalid;€òòandóóÌà8 àà8 à€€€(4)€It€appears€that€the€facts€underlying€the€claim,€if€true,Ïwould€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€thatÏthe€petitioner€is€entitled€to€have€the€conviction€set€asideÏor€the€sentence€reduced.ÓÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217€(emphasis€added).€€To€obtain€relief€under€thisÏsection€of€the€Act,€a€petitioner€must€satisfy€the€requirements€set€forth€in€any€one€ofÏthe€first€three€subsections€as€well€as€those€contained€in€the€fourth€subsection.€ÏòòDonald€Wayne€Easley€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9609„CC„00407,€slip€op.€at€4Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Nov.€6,€1997).€€Here,€the€petitioners€do€not€allegeÏthe€existence€of€a€constitutional€right€not€recognized€at€the€time€of€trial.€€They€do€notÍoffer€new€scientific€evidence€of€actual€innocence€nor€do€they€claim€an€invalidÏprevious€conviction€entitles€them€to€relief€from€an€enhanced€sentence.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.Ìœ›œÌ›ÓÓœ›à àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌœCONCUR:›Ìœ›Ì_______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌœÌ_______________________________›ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge