ÿWPC  ìHôMìc5O@3oëO,8)à?OB3Ñžy—É%5Ò9éÛ!“žV%ã7N°òHgX¾!£+‰UØÄ»2Cz»ö€eK>ä.ÓüþÁ_ÉÛ£x¦ÇÙ=T5ë@xän?þøŠ MÈÿ1¯³ï‘ ¬u%ôÒª2­Y¼®uþO:7µ/Ïá?Má&Þò’;!;‹Rv¢™X+Ã[ å@äqA0T»Wwvŵ¦ȪjÐä‚„Æä“06Ϫ(¨'€ $ë_œvx/÷› š#&:(‰7Ç?‰È« ¨éO\ ¹9Š!/ 8&SÉåËΫ u)¿Fú*¯äw`$³ `@rKk kÐ…!Tñ–U(ÈóRà±f°×ìÙzàÎUù¬©nÆPî #¬÷Òcv£ ¦üâÏ|‰õÀ0änè†H*ô‹Ö˜iz¾ ‰ØPPúƒÉ5éóÌPðñKÔ˜ ì~NöQŸ+¢Ÿ {©-þçR˜lä€ÃKÅÓ,]ã×,eÀß8'çg¹ ÇŒk.ñ.Èë:Ï,Iù˜öRä”Yi\&á5iPE5E_Q ä„8Þ³jIfiäש£Ðü|±“£Ä?]8ú3GpY'r3&ç¦×ÑÜ S¼ ä¨݉œ½b %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ U@Ð #É ÆÙ ÆŸ ÆeÆ+ñNùùùEûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûbýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýýý 0ë Bðð 0¤  D5± D-æ 0K AS^Ʊ 0¤w 0D A«_»æšF0Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0ê:i¢×+003|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - ù-(|G2ok$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôí¤ò»»Ô d(|3w$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Õ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Õ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€…ÏXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡î;®î»»ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†»Õ»îî;®á#ԈРÓ# Ðà@ÉÉìàNovember€19,€2003€SessionˆÐ öF ÐÌà@Ù Ù ìàò òBLAKE€E.€Ô_ÔHALLUMÔ_Ôòò€óó€v.€€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóó óˆÐ  f ÐÌÔ€X…ÏX»»ÕÔà@½ ½ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyˆÐ 7 ‡ Ðà@= = ìàNo.€94„D„2286€€€€€€J.€Randall€Wyatt,€Jr.,€JudgeˆÐ ! q ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Þ` A߈Ð ß/  ÐÌà@’ ’ ìàNo.€M2003„00377„CCA„R3„CO€„€Filed€February€6,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ԈРØ(  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<«` AßÐ ¬ü  Ðó óÌPetitioner,€Blake€E.€Hallum,€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€summary€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€writÐ ¤ô  Ðof€error€coram€nobis.€€After€a€review€of€the€record€and€the€applicable€law,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÐ Ý Ðof€the€trial€court.€€Ð vÆ ÐÌà@ìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óˆÐ H˜ ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Woodall,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andÐ k ÐòòNorma€McGee€Ogle,€J.óó,€joined.Ð T ÐÌDavid€A.€Gold,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Blake€E.€Hallum.€€Ð Ö& ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ¨ø ÐVictor€S.€Johnson€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Katrin€Novak€Miller,€Assistant€DistrictÐ ‘á ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð zÊ ÐÌà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ L œ ÐÌà  àPetitioner€was€convicted,€following€a€jury€trial€in€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court,€ofÐ "o! Ðfelony€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€According€to€his€petition€for€writ€of€error€coramÐ #X" ÐÔ_ÔnobisÔ_Ô,€judgments€on€the€convictions€were€entered€in€the€trial€court€in€January,€1996.€€He€wasÐ ñ#A# Ðconvicted€along€with€a€co„defendant,€Richard€Bruce€Halfacre.€€Each€defendant€appealed,€and€thisÐ Ú$* $ ÐCourt€affirmed€the€convictions€as€to€both€Petitioner€and€his€co„defendant.€€òòState€v.€Richard€BruceÐ Ã%!% ÐÔ_ÔHalfacreÔ_Ô€and€Blake€Edward€Ô_ÔHallumÔ_Ôóó,€No.€01C01„9703„CR„00083,€1998€WL€754319,€1998€Tenn.Ð ¬&ü!& ÐCrim.€App.€LEXIS€1117€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Oct.€29,€1998),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð •'å"' Ð1999).€€Petitioner€subsequently€filed€a€timely€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Following€anÐ ~(Î#( Ðevidentiary€hearing,€the€petition€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€€This€Court€affirmed.€€òòBlake€E.Ð g)·$) ÐHallum€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2001„00569„CCA„R3„PC,€2002€WL€1768993,€2002€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð P* %* ÐLEXIS€645€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€July€31,€2002),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2002).€€Ð 9+‰&+ ÐÌà  àIn€the€direct€appeal€from€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€PetitionerÐ  -[(- Ðargued€that€he€was€entitled€to€relief€based€on€the€recantation€of€testimony€from€a€key€witness€for€theÐ ô-D).ýÕ ÐState€in€Petitionerððs€original€trial.€€Petitioner€asserted€that€the€witness€testified€at€his€post„convictionÐ ° Ðhearing€and€contradicted€her€previous€trial€testimony,€invoked€her€Fifth€Amendment€right€againstÐ ™é Ðself„incrimination,€and€pleaded€a€lack€of€memory€in€response€to€questions€about€the€truthfulness€ofÐ ‚Ò Ðher€trial€testimony.€€òòÔ_ÔHallumÔ_Ôóó,€2002€WL€1768993,€at€*1.€€This€witness,€Sherry€Hayes,€gave€highlyÐ k» Ðincriminating€testimony€against€Petitioner€in€his€trial€for€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravatedÐ T¤ Ðrobbery€charges.€€òòSee€Halfacreóó,€1998€WL€754319,€at€**1„2.€€Ð =  ÐÌà  àAccording€to€Petitionerððs€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô,€Petitioner€filed€an€affidavitÐ  _ Ðof€Ms.€Hayes,€dated€December€30,€1999,€prior€to€the€post„conviction€hearing.€€At€the€post„Ð ø H Ðconviction€hearing,€Ms.€Hayes€recanted€portions€of€her€trial€testimony,€stating€that€she€did€not€testifyÐ á 1  Ðtruthfully€at€Petitionerððs€trial€when€she€said€that€Petitioner€confessed€to€her€that€he€had€committedÐ Ê   Ðthe€offenses€of€felony€murder€and€especially€aggravated€robbery.€€The€post„conviction€court€stoppedÐ ³  Ðthe€proceedings,€advised€Ms.€Hayes€that€she€could€be€charged€with€perjury€for€her€testimony€at€theÐ œì  Ðoriginal€trial,€allowed€her€to€consult€with€an€attorney,€and€recessed€the€post„conviction€proceedings.€Ð …Õ  ÐWhen€the€trial€court€resumed€the€post„conviction€proceedings,€Ms.€Hayes€signed€an€affidavit€datedÐ n¾  ÐJanuary€17,€2001,€in€which€she€repudiated€her€previous€affidavit.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€petitionÐ W§  Ðfor€post„conviction€relief,€finding€that€Ms.€Hayes€had€stated€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€herÐ @ Ðtrial€testimony€was€truthful.€€The€Petitioner€appealed€to€this€Court€and€argued€that€Ms.€Hayes€did,Ð )y Ðin€fact,€indicate€that€her€trial€testimony€was€not€truthful€and,€Petitioner€argued,€that€his€convictionÐ b Ðwas€therefore€void.€€Ð ûK ÐÌà  àIn€the€direct€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€this€Court€held€thatÐ Í Ðthe€issue€of€whether€or€not€Ms.€Hayes€had€recanted€her€trial€testimony,€was€not€a€proper€basis€uponÐ ¶ Ðwhich€to€grant€post„conviction€relief.€€òòÔ_ÔHallumÔ_Ôóó,€2002€WL€1768993,€at€*3.€€We€concluded€that€a€claimÐ Ÿï Ðbased€on€recanted€witness€testimony€is,€in€essence,€a€request€to€re„litigate€the€sufficiency€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðevidence€to€support€a€conviction,€and€a€post„conviction€proceeding€is€not€the€appropriate€form€toÐ qÁ Ðlitigate€a€sufficiency€of€evidence€issue.€€òòIdóó.€€òòóóIn€a€footnote,€we€noted€that€the€appropriate€method€ofÐ Zª Ðpresenting€recanted€testimony€issues€is€by€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.€€This€Court€alsoÐ C“ Ðnoted€that€even€though€this€procedure€has€a€one„year€statute€of€limitations,€it€may€be€tolledÐ ,| Ðòòwhenóócertain€due€process€concerns€are€implicated.€òò€See€Workman€v.€Stateóó,€41€S.W.3d€100€(Tenn.Ð e Ð2001)Ô‡ Xè XXX…ÏÔ.€€Ð þN ÐÌà  àIn€his€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis,€Petitioner€takes€the€position€that€this€Court€hasÐ Ð!   Ðalready€ruled€that€he€is€entitled€to€have€the€statute€of€limitations€tolled€in€his€case.€€The€statute€ofÐ ¹" ! Ðlimitations€in€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€proceeding€begins€to€run€when€the€final€judgment€isÐ ¢#ò" Ðentered€in€the€trial€court.€€Ô#†X…ÏX X Xèr#ÔòòState€v.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€670€(Tenn.€1999).€€As€noted€above,Ð ‹$Û# Ðjudgments€in€this€case€were€entered€in€January,€1996.€€The€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€wasÐ t%Ä $ Ðfiled€November€27,€2002,€well€beyond€the€statute€of€limitations.€€Ð ]&­!% ÐÌà  àThe€State€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss,€which€the€trial€court€granted€in€an€order€filed€JanuaryÐ /(#' Ð15,€2003.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found:€(1)€that€Petitioner€conceded€his€petition€was€filedÐ )h$( Ðoutside€of€the€statute€of€limitations;€and€(2)€the€court€found€no€evidence€or€factors€in€the€record€thatÐ *Q%) Ðwould€require€a€tolling€of€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.Ð ê*:&* ÐÐ Ó+#'+ Ðà  àIn€this€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô,€Petitioner€states€that€he€had€no€knowledge€ofÐ ° ÐMs.€Hayesðð€first€recantation€of€her€trial€testimony€until€December,€1999,€approximately€four€yearsÐ ™é Ðafter€the€judgments€of€his€convictions€became€final€in€the€trial€court,€and€approximately€three€yearsÐ ‚Ò Ðbefore€he€filed€the€present€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.€€Granted,€during€this€time€period,Ð k» ÐPetitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€asserting€his€claim€based€on€the€recantedÐ T¤ Ðtestimony,€but€he€was€also€allowed€to€put€on€proof€regarding€the€issue€at€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€InÐ =  Ðthe€opinion€of€this€Court,€it€appears€that€the€key€witness,€Ms.€Hayes,€ð ðrecantedðð€most,€if€not€all,€ofÐ & v Ðher€recantation€of€trial€testimony,€such€that€the€trial€court€in€the€post„conviction€proceedings€madeÐ  _ Ða€finding€that€she€had€stated€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€that€her€trial€court€testimony€was€truthful.Ð ø H ÐÌà  àIn€òòWorkmanóó,€our€supreme€court€held€for€the€first€time€that€due€process€implications€couldÐ Ê   Ðtoll€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations€in€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€proceeding.€€41€S.W.3dÐ ³  Ðat€103.€€The€Court€noted€that€in€making€this€determination,€ð ðwe€must€consider€the€governmentalÐ œì  Ðinterest€involved€and€the€private€interest€affectedðð€by€use€of€the€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€theÐ …Õ  Ðproceedings.€€òòIdóó.€€As€in€òòWorkmanóó,€the€governmental€interest€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceòòóóóó€is€the€preventionÐ n¾  Ðof€a€stale€and/or€groundless€claim.€€Petitioner€argues€that€his€interest€is€the€opportunity€to€have€aÐ W§  Ðhearing€on€grounds€which€may€show€his€actual€innocence.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Ratliffóó,€71€S.W.3d€291Ð @ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001).€€Ð )y ÐÌà  àEven€though€it€was€presented€erroneously€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€Petitioner€has€hadÐ ûK Ðthe€opportunity€to€present€his€claim€of€recanted€testimony.€€From€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€the€post„Ð ä4 Ðconviction€case,€it€is€clear€that,€at€best€for€Petitioner,€the€key€State€witness,€Ms.€Hayes,€becameÐ Í Ðsomewhat€ð ðfuzzyðð€on€her€recollection€of€the€events€surrounding€the€offenses€after€she€had€testifiedÐ ¶ Ðfor€the€State€at€Petitionerððs€trial.€€In€addition,€the€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€referencesÐ Ÿï ÐMs.€Hayesðð€two€affidavits,€a€portion€of€the€post„conviction€hearing€transcript,€and€a€copy€of€anÐ ˆØ Ðindictment€charging€one€of€the€investigating€officers€of€this€case€with€a€crime,€as€exhibits€to€theÐ qÁ Ðpetition.€€However,€these€exhibits€were€not€attached€to€the€petition,€nor€were€they€otherwise€includedÐ Zª Ðin€the€record€on€appeal.€€If,€in€fact,€these€exhibits€were€presented€to€the€trial€court€with€the€petitionÐ C“ Ðfor€writ€of€error€coram€nobis,€it€was€the€Petitionerððs€duty,€through€his€counsel,€to€make€sure€thatÐ ,| Ðthese€documents€were€included€in€the€record€on€appeal.€€If€these€exhibits€were€not€filed€with€theÐ e Ðoriginal€petition,€then€they€could€not,€and€should€not,€be€considered€by€the€trial€court€in€determiningÐ þN Ðwhether€due€process€implications€would€require€tolling€the€statute€of€limitations.Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àDue€to€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€based€upon€the€record€presented€to€us€in€this€appeal,Ð ¹" ! Ðand€this€Courtððs€prior€opinions€involving€Petitionerððs€case,€we€determine€that€due€process€does€notÐ ¢#ò" Ðrequire€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€€More€than€a€mere€assertion€of€a€right€to€due€process€isÐ ‹$Û# Ðrequired€in€order€to€toll€the€statute€of€limitations€as€it€relates€to€a€petition€for€writ€of€error€coramÐ t%Ä $ Ðnobis.€€In€essence,€that€is€all€that€Petitioner€has€argued.€€Accordingly,€Petitioner€is€not€entitled€toÐ ]&­!% Ðrelief€in€this€appeal.€Ð F'–"& ÐÌà@GG%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ )h$( ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Ð ë*;&* ÐÐ Ô+$'+ Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à___________________________________€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE