WPCR sR޲Ĕdq jjbg夅iX[egɗ>uxf/3Ј?u-癫՜nH&,+|LwpϪ*!PŵݲҖ._㎓Ϝ/W5֛͑C".gYp.;1..WJi*d}J{`tC  U?uX䥖ͯQVVX>QQy[MXL(jRT T"Y }v88meOZ&Ky_A>_5_喅?U^(-yH(~r]Oⱽ a/`g+y5z 7 (eضp{ԲxVևq;88*#(VюnĽ nV/*-tT}PzS̀.w2?#s|wQd8A6#VU.b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m # UN   s9N 0DEJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0OOOO B:: 0W D3 D-. 0K[[ AS 0 0Dc Aj1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0( 3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 COREYWoodallFindleyBlountnolled Crimreinstitutecaselawrefile i]fconcern[edT.C.A.Kennerly  R$      2  t  _Specifically,thetestresultsestablished: 5.ThesefindingsfailtosupportCoreyKennerlysclaimsoffactual  innocenceintherapeandmurderofMarySharp.Moreover,theresultsrevealedthattheAppellantsDNAmatched q theDNAsamples(semen)recoveredfromthevictim,andthestatisticallikelihoodthatanunrelatedpersonchosenat 2 randomfromtheBlackpopulationcouldhavethesameDNAprofileastheAppellantwas 1/56billion.(#$  0    R$      3  t  _Forexample,theRulesofCriminalProcedurewouldpermit,underRule11(e),dispositionofthecasepursuant  toapleaagreement,andRule48wouldpermitdismissaloftheindictmentbytheStateandbytheCourt.Tenn.R.Crim. q P.48(a),(b).  R$      1  t  _Forinstructionalpurposes,wewouldnotethattheAppellantsfilingofa MotiontoReopenPostConviction  Petitionwasincorrect.TheactionshouldhavebeenpresentedasapetitionforDNAanalysis.SeeTenn.CodeAnn. q 4030303(2003).  R$      4  t  _TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030117provideswhenapetitionermayfileamotiontoreopenthe  firstpostconvictionpetition,includingwhen Theclaiminthemotionisbaseduponnewscientificevidenceestablishing q thatsuchpetitionerisactuallyinnocentoftheoffenseoroffensesforwhichthepetitionerwasconvicted.Tenn.Code 2 Ann.4030117(a)(2)(2003).Amotiontoreopenshouldbefiledonlyunderthelimitedcircumstancessetoutin C TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030117.Tenn.Sup.Ct.R28app.D.- -(|G2$ !.8Qdd8         0  t d(|3w$ !.8Qdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8Qdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Qdd8     _   Q8XXdd8@hh2^QINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#Q2^ #Ԉ #    @  @` AssignedonBriefsSeptember22,2004 F XXQ #QXX##COREYKENNERLYv.STATEOFTENNESSEEXXQ  ? @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforFranklinCounty  9 @@No.8782J.CurtisSmith,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200300489CCAR3PCFiledNovember5,_2004_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^      X]XXXTheAppellant,CoreyKennerly,iscurrentlyservingconcurrentsentencesoflifeimprisonmentand V  twentyyears,asaresultofhisguiltypleastofirstdegreemurderandaggravatedrobbery.Kennerly ? hasfiledapetitionpursuanttothePostConvictionDNAAnalysisActof2001requestingDNA (x analysisofevidencethatresultedinhisconvictions.Thetrialcourtgranted_Kennerly_spetitionand a orderedthatDNAanalysisbeperformedatstateexpense.AfterKennerlywasadvisedbythe J forensiclaboratorythattheDNAanalysiswasunfavorable,hemovedtovoluntarilydismisshis 3 petitionwithoutprejudice.Thetrialcourtruledthatvoluntarydismissalofthepetitionwasnot  authorizedbytheActanddismissedthepetitionuponitsmerits.Kennerlyappealsthisruling.After  review,wefindnoerrorandaffirm.  #XXX X]##QXXߓ#XXQ Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  p   #QX4 #XX.QDavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJerryL.SmithandThomasT. C Woodall,JJ.,joined. ,| J.MarkStewart,Winchester,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,CoreyKennerly. N PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;DavidH. ! ! Findley,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;StevenM.Blount,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,forthe " " Appellee,StateofTennessee. ## #QXX #XXQ @@OO& OPINION #QXXS #XXQ t% % #QXX #  XXQ  X]XXX0   0(#(#  0(#(#  @!(#(#ProceduralHistory G'"'    OnOctober28,1996,theAppellantpledguiltytofirstdegreefelonymurderandespecially )k$) aggravatedrobbery.Asprovidedbythepleaagreement,theAppellantwassentencedtoconcurrent *T%* sentencesoflifeimprisonmentforfirstdegreemurderandtwentyyearsforespeciallyaggravated *=&+ robbery.Nodirectappealwastaken,butadenialofpostconvictionreliefwasaffirmedbythis +&', courtonappeal.CoreyAdamsKennerlyv.State,No.01C019806CC00252(Tenn.Crim.App. ,(- atNashville,Apr.29,1999). -(. _ԇ  OnAugust9,2001,theAppellant,proceedingprose,filedamotiontoreopenhispriorpost  convictionpetitionpursuanttothePostConvictionDNAAnalysisActof2001. #  1      ׀Heassertedthat  DNAtestingofthevaginalswabscollectedfromthedeceasedvictimduringtheinvestigationwould  provethathewasinnocentofaggravatedrape,whichwasthecrimeunderlyinghisconvictionfor k felonymurder.Counselwasappointed,andanamendedpetitionwasfiledonFebruary19,2002. T Afterahearing,thetrialcourtgrantedtheAppellantsrequesttohaveDNAtestingperformed.At =  theAppellantsrequest,thetestingwasdoneinaCalifornialabatstateexpense.  & v   Atthenextscheduledhearing,theStateadvisedthetrialcourtthattheDNAtestsresultshad  H beenreturnedandthattheywereunfavorabletotheAppellant. #  2      ׀Baseduponthisinformation,  1  Appellantscounsel,attheAppellantsrequest,movedtowithdrawhispendingmotionforDNA    analysiswithoutprejudice.TheStateobjectedtotheAppellantsmotiontowithdraw,noting,   amongotherreasons,that$5,500.00hadalreadybeenexpendedbytheStateinconductingDNA   testing.     Thetrialcourtinformedthepartiesthatitwouldtakethemotiontowithdrawunder W  advisementbutwantedtoproceedwithanyproofinthecase.TheStaterestedbaseduponthe @ resultsoftheDNAtest,andtheAppellantstatedthathehadnoprooftopresent.OnFebruary11, )y 2003,thetrialcourtordereddismissaloftheAppellantsactionseekingDNAanalysis,findingthat b TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030312(2003)requireddismissalwithprejudiceiftheresults K wereunfavorabletothepetitioner.Thisappealfollowed. 4 @& Analysis    Theissuebeforeusonappealiswhetherapetitionermayvoluntarilydismisshisorher  petitionforDNAanalysisafterthecompletionofforensicDNAtesting,butpriortotheadjudication s ofthepetitiononthemerits. h  \   Indismissingthepetitionwithprejudice,thetrialcourtrelieduponTennesseeCode .~ Annotatedsection4030312,whichprovidesthat [i]ftheresultsofthepostconvictionDNA g analysisarenotfavorabletothepetitioner,thecourtshalldismissthepetitionandmakesuchfurther  P ordersasmaybeappropriate.Moreover,thetrialcourtobserved:  9 8  Obviouslywiththestrategythatiftheresultswereunfavorable,astheywere " ! unfavorable,then[theAppellant]couldavoidtheramificationsofthatbydismissing #" hispetition.However,Ifindthat4030312requiresthatiftheanalysisisnot $# favorabletothepetitionerandheretheDNAanalysiswasnotfavorableto[the  Appellant]thenthisCourtmustdismissthepetitionasthewordsofthestatuteread.     Inarguingthatthetrialcourtsrulingwaserroneous,theAppellantreliesuponoursupreme k courtsholdinginWilliamsv.State,831S.W.2d281(Tenn.1992), forpersuasiveauthoritythat T theDefendantmaywithdrawapostconvictionpetitionforreliefwithoutprejudicetothe =  Petitionersrighttorefile,absentbadfaithonthepartoftheDefendant.Wefindthisargument & v misplaced.Initially,wewouldnotethattheholdinginWilliams concern[ed]theeffectofa  _ voluntarywithdrawalofapetitionforpostconvictionreliefunderT.C.A.4030115(a).Williams,  H 831S.W.2dat282.ThisstatutoryprovisionwasrepealedwiththeadoptionofthePostConviction  1  ProcedureActof1995andisnowcodifiedatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030109(c)    (2003).TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030109(c)provides: Thepetitionermaywithdraw   apetitionatanytimepriortothehearingwithoutprejudicetoanyrightstorefile,butthewithdrawn   petitionshallnottollthestatuteoflimitationssetforthin4030102.     ThePostConvictionDNAAnalysisActof2001,whichisfoundinPart3ofthePost W  ConvictionAct,encompasses,asthenameimplies,onlyDNAanalysisandtheprocedural @ requirementsforobtaininganalysisresults.Thus,apetitionfiledunderPart3doesnotconstitute )y apetitionforgeneralpostconvictionrelief,asitisnotacollateralattackonthejudgmentof b conviction.#XXX X]Q # X]XXXAsthestatutedirects,ifthelaboratoryresultsarenotfavorabletothepetitioner,the K petitionshallbedismissed.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030312.Iftheresultsarefavorable,thetrial 4 courtshallorderahearingandentersuchordersasisrequiredorpermittedby therulesofcriminal  procedure #  3      ׀orpart1ofthischapter.Id.    Part1ofthePostConvictionProcedureActprescribesthegeneralprovisionsoftheActand  establisheswhenaprisonermaypetitionforpostconvictionrelief.TheActexpresslyprovidesthat q apetitionmaybefiledbeyondtheoneyearstatuteoflimitationswhen: Z 8   ` (2)Theclaiminthepetitionisbaseduponnewscientificevidence ,| establishingthatsuchpetitionerisactuallyinnocentoftheoffenseoroffensesfor e whichthepetitionerwasconvicted;N   8  0`   ...!  ` `  8   ` (c)Thispartcontemplatesthefilingofonlyone(1)petitionforpost #" convictionrelief.Innoeventmaymorethanone(1)petitionforpostconviction $#  reliefbefiledattackingasinglejudgment....Apetitionermaymovetoreopena t% $ postconvictionproceedingthathasbeenconcluded,underthelimitedcircumstances  setoutin4030117. #  4          Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(b)(2),(c)(2003). k   Thus,theprovisionsoftheDNAAnalysisActaresimplyanadjuncttothefilingofapetition =  oramotiontoreopenthefirstpostconvictionpetitionunderthegeneralprovisionofPart1ofthe & v PostConvictionProcedureAct.BecauseoursupremecourtsholdinginWilliamsaddressedapost  _ convictionpetitionunderPart1,ithasnoapplicationtoapetitionforDNAanalysisunderPart3.  H Accordingly,weconcludethatbaseduponthestatutoryprovisionsofTennesseeCodeAnnotated  1  section4030312,apetitionermaynotvoluntarilydismisshispetitionafterthebiologicalevidence    hasbeensubmittedforforensicDNAanalysis.      CONCLUSION        Basedupontheforegoing,weaffirmthedecisionoftheFranklinCountyCircuitCourt Y  dismissingtheAppellantspostconvictionpetitionforDNAanalysisonthemerits. B #XXX X]E&#   `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE