ÿWPCS …# VUNa %¯ 0(µbÝw@å4% 9 H 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- U>‘ U *Ï B)ù DC" AMe² BÍv~êvÓh D3; 0@n AO®Æý 0Dà D/ B6˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡- ù- Ä [Å Æ EÇ È {É DÊ Ë DÌ Í Ó€Úƒç"3|xØ 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òDecember€18,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ ` ÑÔ€ŠÔÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€Õ~XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€#$"A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà0 à€IN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌJULY€SESSION,€1997ÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` °†XDp”XÓOLEN€EDWARD€HUTCHISON,à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9702„CR„00065Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óÌà àAppellant,à àà àà àò ò)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àCAMPBELL€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€WITT,€JUDGEÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à)à àó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)à àó óÌ€à àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)à à(POST„CONVICTION)ÌÓ ` °œXÓó óÌÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌò òCHRISTOPHER€VAN€RIPERà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUP€Ìó óSTUART€&€VAN€RIPERà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ300€Market€StreetÌClinton,€TN€37716€à àà àà àò òJOHN€P.€CAULEY€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à2nd€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0943ÌÌò òà àà àà àó óà àà àà àò òWILLIAM€PAUL€PHILLIPSÌó óà àà àà àò òà àà àà àó óDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌò òà àà àà àà àó óà àà àò òMICHAEL€O.€RIPLEY€ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àP.O.€Box€323€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJacksboro,€TN37757€ÌÌÌ€ÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌAFFIRMED€ÌÌTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGEò ò€Ìó óÇÓ  ÓÔ€ °Ôò òòòOPINIONóóó óÔ€ ŠÔÌÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà àà àThe€Petitioner,€Olen€Edward€Hutchison,€appeals€as€of€right€fromÏthe€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€TheÏdismissal€followed€argument€by€both€parties€on€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss.€ÏThe€trial€court€allowed€both€parties€to€argue€the€merits€of€the€Stateððs€motion€toÏdismiss,€but€no€evidence€was€submitted€by€either€side€at€the€hearing.€€WeÏaffirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€his€appeal,€Petitioner€presents€three€(3)€issues€for€review:ÌÓÓà àà à(1)à0 àThe€trial€court€erred€by€not€finding€that€the€statute€of€limitationsÏcodified€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„202(a)Ïviolated€the€due€process€rights€of€Petitioner€and€by€notÏmaking€findings€of€fact€mandated€by€our€supreme€court€inÏòòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995).ÌÌà àà à(2)à0 àThe€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€statements€included€withinÏan€exhibit€attached€to€the€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏwere€not€ð ðòòBradyóóðð€material.€ÌÌà àà à(3)à0 àThe€trial€judge€who€granted€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismissÏwas€not€one€who€was€properly€designated€to€hear€thisÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„205.ÌÌÌÓÓÌòòà@ àFactual€backgroundÌóóÌà àà àPetitioner€was€convicted€of€the€first€degree€murder€of€HughÏHuddleston,€conspiracy€to€take€a€life,€and€solicitation€to€commit€first€degreeÏmurder.€€For€the€conviction€of€first€degree€murder,€he€received€the€death€penalty.€ÏThe€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.ÏHutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€161€(Tenn.€1994),€òòcertóó.€òòdeniedóó,€____€U.S.€____,€116ÏS.Ct.€137€(1995).€€On€May€4,€1995,€Petitioner€filed€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€court€denied€the€petition€following€an€evidentiaryÏhearing€on€September€27,€1995,€and€the€dismissal€of€the€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€recently€affirmed€by€a€panel€of€this€court.€€òòOlen€EddieÏHutchison€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9601„CC„00033,€Campbell€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Knoxville,€Oct.€3,€1997).€€In€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó,€Petitioner€filed€his€secondÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€òòproóó€òòseóó€on€August€1,€1996.€€€The€State€filed€aÏmotion€to€dismiss€this€second€petition€on€August€29,€1996.€€Petitioner€filed€a€òòproóóÏòòseóó€response€on€September€12,€1996,€and€Petitionerððs€counsel€in€the€first€post„conviction€petition€appeared€in€the€present€case€and€filed€a€motion€in€the€caseÏòòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€on€September€17,€1996.€€The€trial€court€allowed€a€hearing€in€thisÏmatter€on€September€19,€1996,€and€dismissed€the€petition.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€the€second€post„conviction€petition€which€is€the€subject€of€thisÏappeal,€the€Petitioner€alleges€that€the€State€withheld€exculpatory€material€beforeÏand€during€the€original€trial€which€led€to€his€convictions.€€Petitioner€alleged€thatÍthe€material€withheld€was€in€violation€of€the€mandates€found€in€òòBrady€v.ÏMarylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.Ct.€1194€(1963).€€The€specific€item€argued€in€thisÏcourt€to€be€òòBradyóó€material€is€a€statement€purportedly€made€by€one€TonyÏGoings€to€an€insurance€company€investigator.€€In€this€recording€of€the€statementÏgiven€by€Mr.€Goings,€one€David€Davis€told€Mr.€Goings€about€a€conversation€heÏhad€with€Richard€Miller€who€was,€as€described€by€our€supreme€court€in€theÏdirect€appeal,€the€chief€prosecution€witness.€€òòHutchisonóó,€898€S.W.2d€at€165.€ÏPetitioner€admits€in€his€brief€that€the€report€from€the€insurance€investigator€wasÏincluded€in€a€large€volume€of€documents€which€Petitionerððs€attorney€wasÏallowed€to€examine€prior€to€the€hearing€of€the€original€post„conviction€petition.€ÏPetitioner€argues,€however,€that€he€and€his€counsel€were€not€provided€withÏadequate€time€to€ð ðexamine€and€utilizeðð€the€investigative€report€in€order€to€includeÏit€in€the€original€post„conviction€hearing.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€dismissed€the€present€petition€because€it€was€filedÏafter€the€expiration€of€the€applicable€one€year€statute€of€limitations€and€a€priorÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€had€been€previously€filed€and€heard€on€itsÏmerits.€€He€also€ruled€that€the€claims€and€issues€asserted€had€been€waivedÏpursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„206(g),€and€the€factsÏalleged€in€the€Petition,€even€if€taken€as€true,€failed€to€show€that€the€Petitioner€isÍentitled€to€relief€as€the€alleged€exculpatory€evidence€does€not€constitute€ð ðòòBradyóóððÏmaterial€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„206(f).ÌÌà@ àòòDue€process€violationóóÌÌà àà àRelying€upon€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995),€theÏPetitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€making€certain€findings€of€fact€asÏmandated€in€that€decision€of€our€supreme€court,€and€by€not€finding€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€violated€his€due€process€rights.€€In€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845ÏS.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992),€our€supreme€court€held€that€the€three„year€statute€ofÏlimitations€then€in€effect€on€post„conviction€petitions€complies€with€the€dueÏprocess€requirements€of€the€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions.€ÏHowever,€the€supreme€court€also€recognized€that€ð ðbefore€a€state€may€terminateÏa€claim€for€failure€to€comply€with€procedural€requirements€such€as€statutes€ofÏlimitations,€due€process€requires€that€potential€litigants€be€provided€anÏopportunity€for€the€presentation€of€claims€at€a€meaningful€time€and€in€aÏmeaningful€manner.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€208€(citations€omitted).€€Therefore,€the€supreme€courtÏfound€that€in€particular€circumstances,€application€of€the€statute€of€limitationsÏmight€not€afford€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€have€an€issue€heard€and€decided.€ÏòòIdóó.€€In€addition,€the€court€suggested€that€ð ð[c]learly,€it€would€be€helpful€in€suchÏinstances€for€the€legislature€to€adopt€a€shorter€statute€of€limitations€for€laterÍarising€grounds€providing€such€a€reasonable€opportunity.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€In€a€separateÏconcurring€opinion€Justice€Daughtrey€also€noted€that€ð ð[i]t€obviously€would€beÏbest€if€the€Tennessee€General€Assembly€would€enact€legislation€dealingÏspecifically€with€the€effect€of€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„102€[statute€of€limitations€on€post„conviction€matters]€on€later„arising€grounds.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€212.ÌÌà àà àPetitionerððs€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€attacking€hisÏconvictions€and€sentences€was€timely€filed€and€an€evidentiary€hearing€wasÏheld.€€Not€only€does€the€statute€of€limitations€bar€the€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€but€it€is€also€barred€by€the€provisions€of€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„202(c)€which€states€in€part,€ð ð[t]his€part€contemplatesÏthe€filing€of€only€one€(1)€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€no€event€may€moreÏthan€one€(1)€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€be€filed€attacking€a€singleÏjudgment.ðð€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„206(b)€provides€inÏpertinent€part€that€ð ð[i]f€it€plainly€appears€from€the€face€of€the€petition,€anyÏannexed€exhibits€or€the€prior€proceedings€in€the€case€that€.€.€.€a€prior€petitionÏwas€filed€attacking€the€conviction€Ô€ XÔand€was€resolved€on€the€merits,€the€judge€shallÏenter€an€order€dismissing€the€petition.ðð€€Ô€ ŠÔà àà àÌà àà àAs€noted€above,€Petitioner€candidly€admits€that€he€had€access€toÏthe€alleged€ð ðòòBradyóóðð€material€prior€to€the€hearing€on€the€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€There€is€no€evidence€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€PetitionerÍwas€not€provided€an€opportunity€for€the€presentation€of€claims€at€a€meaningfulÏtime€and€in€a€meaningful€manner€as€required€by€œòòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at›€208.ÌÌà àà àTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àòòFinding€that€alleged€exculpatory€information€was€not€ð ðòòbradyóóðð€materialóóÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€was€justified€in€dismissing€this€second€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief€on€the€basis€that€it€had€been€filed€after€expiration€of€theÏstatute€of€limitations,€and€another€petition€for€relief€had€already€been€filed€andÏheard€on€the€merits.€€However,€the€trial€court€erred€in€relying€upon€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„30„206(f)€to€support€dismissal€of€the€petition€withoutÏan€evidentiary€hearing.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€its€order€dismissing€the€petition,€the€trial€court€stated€that€theÏallegations€in€the€petition,€even€if€true,€failed€to€show€that€the€Petitioner€wasÏentitled€to€relief,€failed€to€show€that€the€claims€for€relief€had€not€been€waived,Ïand€made€a€finding€that€the€alleged€exculpatory€evidence€did€not€constituteÏð ðòòBradyóóðð€material.€€In€its€ruling€from€the€bench,€the€trial€court€expressed€doubt€thatÏPetitioner€could€prove€the€allegations€contained€in€the€petition.€€ÌÌà àà àIncluded€within€the€petition€are€the€allegations€that€the€prosecutionÏknowingly€presented€perjured€testimony€during€the€trial€and€withheld€exculpatoryÏinformation,€among€other€claims.€€In€essence,€it€appears€from€the€record€that€theÏtrial€court€made€a€determination,€without€an€evidentiary€hearing,€that€it€did€notÏbelieve€the€allegations.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€standard€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„206(f)Ïrequires€the€trial€court€to€assume€the€facts€alleged€to€be€true,€and€then€make€aÏdetermination€that€the€Petitioner€is€still€not€entitled€to€any€relief.€€Also,€there€areÏallegations€in€the€petition€that€the€claims€for€relief€were€not€waived.€€WeÏrespectfully€find€that€the€trial€court€applied€the€wrong€standard€of€review€and€theÏpetition€should€not€have€been€dismissed€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„206(f).€€However,€since€we€determined€that€the€petitionÏwas€properly€dismissed€because€it€had€been€filed€after€expiration€of€the€statuteÏof€limitations€and€a€prior€post„conviction€petition€had€been€filed€and€heard€on€theÏmerits,€any€error€by€the€trial€court€was€harmless.ÌÌà@ àòòTrial€courtððs€jurisdictionóóÌÌà àà àPetitioner€argues€that€Judge€James€C.€Witt€did€not€have€jurisdictionÏto€enter€an€order€dismissing€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€In€support€ofÍhis€argument,€he€relies€upon€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„205(b)Ïwhich€provides€as€follows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àAt€either€the€trial€proceeding€or€an€appellate€proceeding€reviewingÏthe€proceeding,€the€presiding€judge€of€the€appropriate€court€shallÏassign€a€judge€to€hear€the€petition.€€The€issue€of€competency€ofÏcounsel€may€be€heard€by€a€judge€other€than€the€original€hearingÏjudge.€€If€a€presiding€judge€is€unable€to€assign€a€judge,€the€chiefÏjustice€of€the€supreme€court€shall€designate€an€appropriate€judge€toÏhear€the€matter.€€ÌÓÓÌà àà àIt€appears€from€the€record€that€Judge€Witt€was€designated€toÏpreside€over€the€trial€of€the€original€charges€and€also€was€designated€to€hearÏthe€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Counsel€for€Petitioner€did€not€challengeÏthe€appropriateness€of€Judge€Witt€to€hear€the€case€until€the€morning€of€theÏhearing€on€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss.€€ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€recognize€that€the€language€contained€in€TennesseeÏCode€Annotated€section€40„30„205(b)€appears€to€be€mandatory,€we€also€noteÏthere€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€that€the€presiding€judge€of€the€CircuitÏCourt€of€Campbell€County€would€not€appoint€Judge€Witt€to€hear€this€particularÏpetition.€€Even€if€it€was€error€for€Judge€Witt€to€hear€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismissÏwithout€strict€compliance€with€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„205(b),Ïwe€hold€that€it€was€harmless€error.€€In€òòMay€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€933,€934Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979),€our€court€held€that€it€was€harmless€error€for€the€trialÍcourt€to€dismiss€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€without€an€evidentiary€hearingÏand€not€comply€with€a€statute€requiring€the€court€to€designate€a€judge€other€thanÏthe€one€who€presided€at€trial€to€hear€a€related€post„conviction€matter.€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àFinding€no€reversible€error,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÏThe€sentence€of€death€will€be€carried€out€as€provided€by€law€on€the€8th€day€ofÏApril,€1998,€unless€otherwise€ordered€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€or€otherÏproper€authority.€€ÌÓÓà àÌà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€Judge€ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€Senior€JudgeÌ