ÿWPC± £œ"`Fõ A0R[ˆ–YÔ<¶ ïS9a’+(HAiR¾SڥĻß‚ Øú“¹ßúÇ«–ì;†Ù ¥Õ¼ÂÆèîñÕ¾&bµÔQ|ž²æ$;»ÓæcA‘k}€vz!$ÃMF\Ûî½N')?5{I¨¯Sü¥%fØfI©ŠPADï9]g nÁ;z÷Ls àÊ[ŸaÇœíRf´£çóŒAêOŠxìyfàÈÐ ÆcE7~Ì\:ùuŒßÄ: ؑ»©cùÛñkC¶!´e»¨úݡÝüÂHÿJq$•êÝ€ú#Ï“¶‚?7‘[è¼L5–O-pò%ÈXÔÏ’|â" tL} øFEºû¿ÓO9„2……á ô‹öô*AƯ»Šk;Á`êEb}sþ]ÏF7—·WrñCC«ò¼U}¯üV7­9WVœRdæ•|j˜… Ñ—9ÖyUZpÐG8&9°ý§·°Øäãù—I(K¬sÖHŽfÖÏQìµxjWë—öJD¹}‡€•Ï0mB]¿aÍpmþ¯{¸ÓhsHN°Ó¼àHÜ=bøìf¯Ré–o÷'ÕÔ ‹Ø¶Ï…ªª‹u«ÖG®­çá¶*f•Î0çÓQvë‡çQªû\+ï'>b %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ 1u™ Æ ÆÔ ÆšÆ` 72&NXU@ZšE¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢b¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤¤ 0묬¬¬ B—— 0¤´ D5X D- 0Kºº ASÆX 0¤ 0D A«»ë„=1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï.ê: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.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ03#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 i)(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman  - ù-(|G2¸©$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¯íò»»Ô d(|3ÿc$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿc$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€TEXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îXî»»ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†»-»îîXá#ԈРÖ& Ðà@ÖÖ ìàJune€15,€2004€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÌà@IIìàò òRAYMOND€ROGER€JONES€€v.€€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEó óˆÐ  p ÐÌÔ€XTEX»»-Ôà@L L ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Washington€CountyˆÐ F – Ðà@Õ Õ ìàNo.€21822€€€€€€Robert€E.€Ô_ÔCuppÔ_Ô,€JudgeˆÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<õ` A߈Ð öF  ÐÌà@• • ìàNo.€E2003„00580„CCA„R3„PC€Filed€September€29,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ԈРñA  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<È` AßÐ É  Ðó óÌPetitioner,€Raymond€Roger€Jones,€appeals€the€Washington€County€Criminal€Courtððs€dismissal€of€hisÐ Ä Ðòòpro€seóó€combined€motion€to€reopen€his€post„conviction€petition,€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô,Ð ° Ðand€petition€for€DNA€analysis.€Petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€jury€in€the€Knox€County€CriminalÐ œì ÐCourt€of€two€counts€of€first€degree€murder.€€He€received€consecutive€life€sentences.€€This€CourtÐ ˆØ Ðaffirmed€Defendantððs€convictions€and€sentences€on€direct€appeal.€€òòSee€State€v.€Jonesóó,€735€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð803€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1987).€€Petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€the€WashingtonÐ `° ÐCounty€Criminal€Court.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition,€and€this€Court€affirmed.€€òòSeeÐ Lœ ÐRaymond€Roger€Jones€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9102„CR„00068,€1991€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€LEXIS€584,Ð 8ˆ Ð(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€at€Knoxville,€July€26,€1991),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1992).€€On€June€22,Ð $t Ð2001,€Petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€motion€to€reopen€his€post„conviction€petition,€alleging€that€the€UnitedÐ ` ÐStates€Supreme€Courtððs€decision€in€òòÔ_ÔApprendiÔ_Ô€v.€New€Jerseyóó,€530€U.S.€466,€120€S.€Ct.€2348,€147€L.Ð üL ÐEd.€2d€435€(2000),€established€a€new€rule€of€constitutional€law€requiring€retroactive€application€toÐ è8 Ðhis€case.€€Petitioner€subsequently€filed€a€supplemental€request€for€DNA€analysis.€€The€trial€courtÐ Ô$ Ðdismissed€the€motion€and€denied€Petitionerððs€request€for€DNA€Analysis.€€Petitioner€appeals.€€AfterÐ À Ðreviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€the€judgments€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð ¬ü ÐÌà@ááìàò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgments€of€the€Trial€Court€Affirmedó óˆÐ „!Ô  ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€and€òòJohnÐ \#¬" ÐEverett€Williams,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð H$˜# ÐÌJanie€L.€Ô_ÔLindamoodÔ_Ô,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Raymond€Roger€Jones.€€Ð  &p!% ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€John€H.€Ô_ÔBledsoeÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€JoeÐ ø'H#' ÐC.€Ô_ÔCrumleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Steve€Finney,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð ä(4$( Ðfor€the€appellee,€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð Ð) %) ÐÌÌÌÐ €-Ð(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà@66'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° Ðò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ œì ÐÌà  àThe€following€factual€background€is€taken€from€this€Courtððs€opinion€in€Petitionerððs€directÐ tÄ Ðappeal.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€735€S.W.2d€803€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Stanley€and€Jean€Jones,Ð `° ÐPetitionerððs€brother€and€sister„in„law,€disappeared€from€their€home€in€Washington€County€on€Friday,Ð L œ ÐAugust€13,€1982.€€Stanley€owned€35€acres€of€property,€adjacent€to€where€Petitioner€lived,€which€heÐ 8 ˆ Ðreceived€when€the€farm€on€which€Petitioner€and€his€brothers€were€raised€was€divided€amongÐ $ t ÐPetitioner,€Stanley,€and€their€brother€Clyde.€€An€empty€grave€was€found€beneath€the€floor€of€anÐ  ` Ðabandoned€schoolhouse€located€on€that€property.€€Petitionerððs€fingerprints€were€discovered€on€aÐ ü L  Ðflashlight,€which€was€found€on€the€schoolhouse€floor.€€On€the€Sunday€following€the€Friday€on€whichÐ è 8  Ðthe€victims€were€last€seen,€Petitionerððs€neighbor€heard€voices€and€a€gunshot€coming€from€betweenÐ Ô$  ÐPetitionerððs€house€and€the€schoolhouse€on€Stanleyððs€property.€€The€neighbor€heard€a€womanððs€voiceÐ À  Ðscreaming,€ð ðHelp!€Help!€Please,€help€me!ðð€€Then€she€heard€the€voices€of€two€people€talking.€€SheÐ ¬ü  Ðrecognized€one€of€the€voices€as€Petitionerððs.€€Later€that€day,€the€neighbor€saw€Stanleyððs€orangeÐ ˜è  ÐDatsun€station€wagon€parked€between€the€back€door€of€Petitionerððs€house€and€his€garage.€€A€coupleÐ „Ô  Ðalso€saw€the€station€wagon€parked€in€front€of€Petitionerððs€house€with€the€rear€hatch€open.€€The€stationÐ pÀ Ðwagon€was€seen€at€Petitionerððs€house€again€on€Tuesday,€but€it€was€not€there€on€Wednesday.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðstation€wagon€was€later€found€abandoned€at€the€Empire€Motor€Lodge€in€Abingdon,€Virginia.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àA€crime€lab€analysis€revealed€blood€stains€on€the€carpet,€the€kitchen€floor,€a€wicker€table,€andÐ  p Ða€chair€in€the€victimsðð€home.€€Blood€stains€on€the€kitchen€floor€matched€Stanleyððs€blood€type,€whichÐ  \ Ðwas€type€ð ðA,ðð€and€although€no€evidence€of€Jeanððs€blood€type€was€presented,€a€sanitary€napkin€foundÐ øH Ðin€the€trash€had€type€ð ðOðð€blood,€which€was€the€type€found€in€the€carpet.€€A€bullet€hole€was€found€inÐ ä4 Ða€table€leg.€€Two€lead€bullet€fragments€were€found€in€the€carpet.€€A€spent€bullet€was€inside€a€boot,Ð Ð  Ðand€another€was€embedded€in€the€kitchen€wall.€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àChester€Allen,€a€friend€of€Petitioner,€testified€at€trial€as€to€several€incriminating€statementsÐ ”ä Ðthat€Petitioner€made€to€him.€€He€testified€that€on€the€Monday€following€the€last€day€that€the€victimsÐ €Ð Ðwere€seen€alive,€Petitioner€asked€him€to€keep€a€Walther€P„38€pistol€for€him.€€Petitioner€told€Mr.Ð l¼ ÐAllen,€ð ðThereððs€a€good€chance€that€Stanley€wonððt€show€up€again,ðð€and€referring€to€a€conversationÐ X ¨ Ðhe€had€with€a€third€party,€ð ðYou€know,€he€remembered€that€bastard,€Stanley.ðð€€Petitioner€told€Mr.Ð D!” ÐAllen€that€he€had€taken€the€pistol€to€a€gunsmith€in€Johnson€City€for€repairs€and€that€he€had€usedÐ 0"€  Ðanother€manððs€name.€€The€gunsmith€had€given€Petitioner€ammunition€for€the€pistol.€€Mr.€Allen€sawÐ #l! ÐPetitioner€clean€the€pistol,€which€was€loaded€with€solid€copper€jacket€bullets.€€Mr.€Allen€reportedÐ $X" Ðthe€serial€number€of€the€pistol€to€the€sheriffððs€department.€€Petitioner€hid€the€pistol€in€Mr.€AllenððsÐ ô$D # Ðbarn,€but€Mr.€Allen€requested€that€Petitioner€retrieve€it€the€next€day,€and€Petitioner€did€so.€€PetitionerÐ à%0!$ Ðtold€Mr.€Allen,€ð ðLet€me€tell€you,€there€is€nothing€to€be€worried€about,ðð€and€ð ðEverythingððs€been€takenÐ Ì&"% Ðcare€of.ðð€€Referring€to€the€victims,€Petitioner€said,€ð ðThey€are€not€coming€back€now€or€never,ðð€andÐ ¸'#& Ðð ðthereððs€nothing€to€be€afraid€of.ðð€€Mr.€Allen€asked€Petitioner€if€the€gun€was€involved€in€theirÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdisappearances,€and€Petitioner€responded,€ð ðIf€it€didnððt,€why€would€I€want€to€be€gettinðð€rid€of€it?ðð€€Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àMr.€Allen€cooperated€with€investigators€and€wire„tapped€a€conversation€with€Petitioner.€€InÐ ° Ðâ âthat€conversation,€Petitioner€told€Mr.€Allen€that€he€had€wiped€any€fingerprints€from€the€gun€and€theÐ œì Ðbox€it€was€in€and€buried€the€box€with€the€gun€inside€in€a€barn€stable.€€He€also€told€Mr.€Allen€thatÐ ˆØ ÐStanley€was€going€to€take€his€place€from€him.€€He€said,€ð ðI€cannot€say€that€I€donððt€hate€this€thingÐ tÄ Ðhappened€ð!ð€that€Stanleyððs€gone.ðð€€Petitioner€said€that€Stanley€and€Jean€had€gone€on€a€permanentÐ `° Ðvacation.€€Petitioner€said,€ð ðWhen€it€really€comes€down€to€your€family€.€.€.€everybody€has€a€breakingÐ L œ Ðpoint.ðð€€Investigators€found€the€pistol€that€Petitioner€had€buried.€€The€gunsmith€identified€it,€and€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðballistic€expert€testified€that€the€bullets€found€in€the€boot€and€the€wall€of€the€victimsðð€home€wereÐ $ t Ðfired€from€it.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€evidence€showed€that€Petitioner€had€defaulted€on€a€loan€on€which€his€brothers€StanleyÐ è 8  Ðand€Clyde€had€co„signed.€€Stanley€had€obtained€a€judgment€against€Petitioner€and€was€contemplatingÐ Ô$  Ða€foreclosure€on€Petitionerððs€home.€€A€critical€stage€in€the€lawsuit€by€Stanley€against€PetitionerÐ À  Ðoccurred€in€May,€1982,€which€is€when€Petitioner€took€the€pistol€to€be€repaired.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àThere€was€also€evidence€that€the€victims€had€money€in€active€bank€accounts.€€They€hadÐ „Ô  Ðbought€and€stored€roofing€materials,€intending€to€re„roof€their€100„year„old€log€house.€€The€victimsÐ pÀ Ðhad€a€white€pickup€truck€that€was€being€repaired€at€the€time€of€their€disappearance.€€Jean€had€boughtÐ \¬ Ðan€airline€ticket€for€a€trip€to€Denver,€which€arrived€in€the€mail€after€her€disappearance.€€Jeanððs€sister,Ð H˜ Ðwho€had€visited€Stanley€and€Jean€in€July,€1982,€testified€that€Stanley€and€Jean€had€a€ð ðreal€goodððÐ 4„ Ðrelationship.€€Stanley€had€been€negotiating€the€sale€of€some€cattle,€which€was€scheduled€to€occur€onÐ  p ÐSaturday,€August€14,€1982,€but€he€did€not€arrive€for€the€sale.€€Tom€Allen,€the€buyer€of€the€cattle,€hadÐ  \ Ðgiven€Stanley€a€check,€which€Stanley€never€cashed.€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àAfter€Petitionerððs€arrest€in€September,€1982,€the€bodies€of€Stanley€and€Jean€Jones€wereÐ Ð  Ðdiscovered.€€However,€evidence€concerning€the€discovery€of€their€bodies€was€suppressed€uponÐ ¼  Ðmotion€of€Petitioner.€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àOn€July€28,€1984,€Petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€Knox€County€jury€of€two€counts€of€firstÐ €Ð Ðdegree€murder.€€He€was€sentenced€to€life€imprisonment€for€each€offense,€and€the€sentences€wereÐ l¼ Ðordered€to€be€served€consecutively.€€His€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€Ð X ¨ ÐòòJonesóó,€735€S.W.2d€at€805.€€Petitioner€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€August€3,€1987.€Ð D!” ÐPetitioner€later€filed€an€amended€petition.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÐ 0"€  Ðpost„conviction€relief.€€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€òòsupraóó.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àOn€June€22,€2001,€Petitioner€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€motion€to€reopen€his€petition€for€post„convictionÐ ô$D # Ðrelief,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€40„30„117(a)(1),€asserting€that€Tennesseeððs€consecutiveÐ à%0!$ Ðsentencing€statute€violates€a€new€constitutional€right€established€in€òòApprendi€v.€New€Jerseyóó,€530€U.S.Ð Ì&"% Ð466,€120€S.€Ct.€2348,€147€L.€Ed.€2d€435€(2000).€€The€trial€court€summarily€dismissed€PetitionerððsÐ ¸'#& Ðmotion.€€Petitioner€subsequently€filed€a€supplemental€request€for€DNA€analysis;€petition€for€òòwrit€ofÐ ¤(ô#' Ðerror€coram€nobisóó;€and€petition€for€declaratory€judgment.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€post„Ð )à$( Ðconviction€allegations€as€time„barred.€€The€trial€court€also€concluded€that€Petitionerððs€request€forÐ |*Ì%) ÐDNA€analysis€did€not€meet€the€statutory€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€section€40„30„304(1).€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àIn€an€order,€a€panel€of€this€Court€dismissed€Petitionerððs€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€denialÐ ° Ðof€his€motion€to€reopen€his€post„conviction€petition€under€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ œì ÐAppellate€Procedure.€€An€appeal€as€of€right€is€not€available€for€review€of€a€lower€courtððs€denial€ofÐ ˆØ Ða€motion€to€reopen€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b);€òòGary€Wallace€v.Ð tÄ ÐStateóó,€No.€W2002„01832„CCA„R3„PC,€2003€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€566,€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÐ `° ÐJackson,€June€26,€2003),€òòno€perm.€to€app.€filedóó.€€However,€this€Court€concluded€that€PetitionerððsÐ L œ Ðrequest€for€DNA€analysis€was€properly€preserved€for€appeal.€€Therefore,€the€only€issue€for€our€reviewÐ 8 ˆ Ðis€whether€the€trial€court€properly€denied€Petitionerððs€request€for€DNA€analysis€under€the€Post„Ð $ t ÐConviction€DNA€Analysis€Act.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€Post„Conviction€DNA€Analysis€Act€of€2001€provides,€ð ð[A]€person€convicted€of€andÐ è 8  Ðsentenced€for€the€commission€of€first€degree€murder€.€.€.€€may€at€any€time,€file€a€petition€requestingÐ Ô$  Ðthe€forensic€DNA€analysis€of€any€evidence€that€is€in€the€possession€or€control€of€the€prosecution.ðð€Ð À  ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„303.€€After€the€State€has€an€opportunity€to€respond,€the€trial€court€mustÐ ¬ü  Ðorder€DNA€analysis€if:€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÓ ÐÓÓ ÐÓ(1)€A€reasonable€probability€exists€that€the€petitioner€would€not€have€beenÐ pÀ Ðprosecuted€or€convicted€if€exculpatory€results€had€been€obtained€through€DNAÐ \¬ Ðanalysis;Ð H˜ ÐÌ(2)€The€evidence€is€still€in€existence€and€in€such€a€condition€that€DNA€analysisÐ  p Ðmay€be€conducted;Ð  \ ÐÌ(3)€The€evidence€was€never€previously€subjected€to€DNA€analysis€or€was€notÐ ä4 Ðsubjected€to€the€analysis€that€is€now€requested€which€could€resolve€an€issue€notÐ Ð  Ðresolved€by€previous€analysis;Ð ¼  ÐÌ(4)€The€application€for€analysis€is€made€for€the€purpose€of€demonstratingÐ ”ä Ðinnocence€and€not€to€unreasonably€delay€the€execution€of€sentence€orÐ €Ð Ðadministration€of€justice.Ð l¼ ÐÓ Ð€8ÓÓ Ðr8ÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„304.€€ð ðThe€failure€to€meet€any€of€the€qualifying€criteria€is,€of€course,€fatalÐ D!” Ðto€the€action.ðð€€òòWilliam€D.€Buford€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2002„02180„CCA„R3„PC,€2003€Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð 0"€  ÐLEXIS€370€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€April€24,€2003),€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2003).€€Ð #l! ÐÌà  àIn€his€petition€for€DNA€analysis,€Petitioner€alleges€that€the€results€of€DNA€testing€on€22€trialÐ ô$D # Ðexhibits€would€ð ðshow€the€identity€of€the€real€murderer€and€prove€Petitionerððs€innocence.ðð€€ThoseÐ à%0!$ Ðitems,€which€Petitioner€alleges€are€in€the€possession€of€the€State,€include,€among€other€things,€aÐ Ì&"% Ðflashlight,€pretzels,€a€pistol,€the€victimððs€blood,€a€chair,€bullet€fragments,€boots,€a€paper€bag,€a€pieceÐ ¸'#& Ðof€linoleum,€carpet€fibers,€a€sanitary€napkin,€and€a€wicker€end€table.€€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€that€even€if€the€22€trial€exhibits€on€which€Petitioner€requested€DNAÐ |*Ì%) Ðanalysis€were€amenable€to€testing,€the€results€would€not€negate€the€overwhelming€evidence€at€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðof€Petitionerððs€guilt.€€In€its€written€order€summarily€dismissing€the€petition€for€DNA€analysis,€theÐ ° Ðtrial€court€stated€as€follows:Ð œì ÐÌÓ ÐÓÓ ÐÓ€€€€€Assuming,€arguendo€that€DNA€analysis€could€be€conducted€on€each€of€theÐ tÄ Ðitems,€would€this€show€the€real€identity€of€the€murderer,€or€murderers€in€this€case?€Ð `° ÐThis€Court€does€not€believe€so.€€The€listed€items€could€contain€DNA€fromÐ L œ Ðnumerous€individuals,€simply€because€of€the€nature€of€the€item.€€As€an€example,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthe€bag€containing€pieces€of€carpet€could€have€the€DNA€of€the€installer€orÐ $ t Ðinstallers,€the€people€who€manufacture€the€carpet,€the€salesman€of€the€carpet€andÐ  ` Ðthe€people€within€the€household,€including€the€family,€along€with€visitors.€€ThisÐ ü L  Ðargument€would€be€true€as€to€any€item€listed€by€the€Petitioner.Ð è 8  ÐÌ€€€€€Again,€assuming€that€DNA€could€be€obtained€from€any€or€all€of€these€items,Ð À  Ðhow€would€the€Petitioner€propose€to€match€the€DNA€to€all€these€unknownÐ ¬ü  Ðpersons.€€To€grant€DNA€analysis€of€these€items€would€be€nothing€more€than€anÐ ˜è  Ðexercise€in€futility€that€this€court€does€not€believe€that€the€statute€contemplates.Ð „Ô  ÐÌ€€€€€Moreover,€and€more€importantly,€this€court€finds€there€is€a€threshold€provisionÐ \¬ Ðfor€T.C.A.€40„30„404(1)€which€requires€ð ða€reasonable€probability€exists€that€theÐ H˜ ÐPetitioner€would€not€have€been€prosecuted€or€convicted€if€exculpatory€results€hadÐ 4„ Ðbeen€obtained€through€DNA€analysis.ðð€€Ð  p ÐÌ€€€€Reading€the€opinion€from€the€Petitionerððs€original€appeal€reveals€overwhelmingÐ øH Ðevidence€from€which€a€jury€could€have€concluded€the€Petitioner€guilty€of€theseÐ ä4 Ðcrimes.€€ò òIncredibly,€the€most€damning€evidence€of€his€guilt€was€evidence€thatÐ Ð  Ðwas€ruled€inadmissibleó ó.€€The€Petitioner,€while€incarcerated€made€a€statement€toÐ À Ðanother€inmate€that€lead€[sic]€the€Washington€County€Sheriffððs€Department€to€theÐ ° Ðdiscovery€of€the€buried€bodies€of€the€Petitionerððs€brother€and€sister„in„law.€€In€oneÐ œì Ðof€the€graves€they€also€found€a€tube€of€bathtub€caulk.€€This€lead€[sic]€theÐ ˆØ Ðinvestigators€to€return€to€the€victimsðð€home€where€they€found€a€spent€bullet€thatÐ tÄ Ðappeared€to€have€been€fired€from€the€murder€weapon.€€This€bullet,€and€the€holeÐ ` ° Ðit€produced,€had€been€overlooked€during€prior€inspections€of€the€house€as€it€wasÐ L!œ Ðembedded€in€a€wall,€and€caulk€was€used€to€mask€the€hole.€€Ð 8"ˆ  ÐÌ€€ò ò€Although€all€this€evidence€was€inadmissible€at€trial,€including€discovery€ofÐ $`" Ðthe€bodies,€this€Court€can€consider€the€evidence€to€reach€certain€conclusionsÐ %P # Ðregarding€DNA€analysisó ó.€€In€this€regard,€it€would€be€proper€to€conclude,€underÐ ì%