ÿWPCD TIKWkÏ™@Çzk»»¯?¦mƒÖ×F0ÎAúŒ Îr¹Æ?BW\½Äl'½%ñLËó³Ó@ ÚqãkŒ w‰W2úñ%˜©èÃ)µµ„'¢Y²n˜ÐøWŽH›ŸœìöüŸt~Xýúî™ ¥ywò@ËþG1Ñ*~HgÑ‹µæ]î.Ý¥^âxz@ð4™yr1ª&u«Fù/ã!{.pó 5QXQ‘÷=À¡RåÁ»¸…=x¸žžƒX`’p{qð†Çò£;%ZíÝHBhN¾ŸÅ„[nzY%#BÃÎb¼¼bcÂôÕ.ªèf)$–HÙ£ä#ȇ”Q¼ù Y¼€Ã¹CÒŒ)ǯo;]>îh•s>¬Ú­æÌ`W'!Ac¾´†[d! x¤ïK|_ˆXQöòœèÚ9Zä=Ãékµýô+íæ‹žÓ?It0á<ã¤UnǨ?ø™”ìbäÀ÷q»ÊûÁ œë¯´‚h\çgî÷tvçét¯£WzÙ 9½EjKY8s…¿È„¬P¦;a4ΖÉ~²i/ÙãŠw¾|¼ ò¶¾æ,x¾¶¾îÌ-:*¿å—•‹¬û©eªB»bEú†HÈö~,úï£$—–5^bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°U@8^ xw„4ˆ zœÒ è ÷ mù 0D ÆT Æ Æà Ʀ l Nln#ÁvE777777777777777777777777b999999999999999999999999999999999999 0ëAAAA B,, 0¤I D3í D-  0KMM AS˜Æë 0¤± 0DU A«™(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Φ*+â Yo†)~1€l¦ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 öÝ ƒR¡¸$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŸdò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€his€petition,€the€Appellant€alleges:€ð ðSimply,€counsel€waived€opportunity€to€expound€upon€the€one€point€ofÐ ° Ðlaw€through€which€the€Petitionerððs€conviction€could€not€stand,€the€fact€that€the€Petitioner/Appellant/Defendantððs€identityÐ tÄ Ðwas€never€corroborated,€yet€never€mentioned€this€fact€in€the€appellate€brief€to€any€detail.ðð ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0- ù-(|G2¡¸$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€&ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôŸdò»»Ô d(|3w$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€&ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€&ü»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€&ü»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼&ü»»»ÔÑ8€{ðXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î9}&üÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼&ü»îî9} #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€7,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X{ðX»¼&üÔÌò òÔ#†¼&ü»XX{ð#ÔTARRAN€KYLESòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡X{ðX»¼&üÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Madison€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€C„00„247€€€€€€Roy€B.€Morgan,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„02152„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€September€6,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X{ðXXX{ðÔThe€Appellant,€Tarran€Kyles,€proceeding€òòpro€seóó,€appeals€from€the€order€of€the€Madison€CountyÐ xÈ  ÐCircuit€Court€denying€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€€The€post„conviction€court€in€aÐ d´ Ðð ðPreliminary€Orderððdismissed€Kylesðð€petition,€finding€that€the€only€issue€raised€in€the€petition€wasÐ P  Ðpreviously€determined€on€direct€appeal.€€For€the€reasons€stated€below,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€theÐ <Œ Ðpost„conviction€court€dismissing€the€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing.Ð (x ÐÔ#†X{ðXXX{ðÈ#ÔÔ#†¼&ü»XX{ð‘#ÔÔ‡X{ðX»¼&üÔÌÓ¼ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€is€Affirmed.ó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼&ü»àX{ðu#ÔÔ‡X{ðX.¼&üÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoe€G.€Rileyóó€and€òòAlan€E.€Glennóó,Ð Ä ÐJJ.,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌTarran€Kyles,€Henning,€Tennessee,€òòPro€Seóó.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€John€H.Ð `° ÐBledsoe,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€James€G.€(Jerry)€Woodall,€District€Attorney€General;€and€AlÐ L œ ÐEarls,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÔ#†¼&ü»XX{ð2#ÔÔ‡X{ðX»¼&üÔÌÓÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONÐ ü#L# ÐÌBackgroundó óÔ#†¼&ü»XX{ð¨ #ÔÔ‡X{ðX»¼&üÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼&ü»XX{ð; #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X{ðX»¼&üÔÔ‡X{ðXXX{ðÔà  àThe€Appellant€was€convicted€for€one€count€of€felony€murder€and€one€count€of€especiallyÐ ¬'ü"' Ðaggravated€robbery.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€the€Appellant€to€consecutive€sentences€of€life€withoutÐ ˜(è#( Ðthe€possibility€of€parole€for€the€felony€murder€conviction€and€to€thirty„five€years€as€a€Range€II,Ð „)Ô$) Ðmultiple€offender€for€the€especially€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€€€These€€convictions€andÐ p*À%* Ðsentences€were€later€affirmed€on€direct€appeal.€€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tarran€Kylesóó,€No.€02C01„9807„CC„Ð \+¬&+ Ð00203€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€July€15,€1999),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€29,€1999).Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý Ðà  àOn€July€14,€2000,€the€Appellant€timely€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð ° Ðalleging€that€his€appellate€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€argue€on€appeal€the€lack€of€Ð œì Ðindependent€corroboration€of€accomplice€testimony€required€to€support€his€conviction.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€On€JulyÐ ˆØ Ð21,€2000,€the€post„conviction€court€entered€a€preliminary€order€summarily€dismissing€the€AppellantððsÐ tÄ Ðpetition€upon€grounds€that€the€Appellantððs€issue€of€accomplice€corroboration€was€previouslyÐ `° Ðdetermined€on€direct€appeal€and,€thus,€could€not€be€relitigated€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€OnÐ L œ ÐAugust€23,€2000,€the€Appellant€filed€his€notice€of€appeal.€The€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€requireÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€a€notice€of€appeal€be€filed€within€thirty€days€after€the€entry€of€the€judgment€from€which€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€is€appealing.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€€€The€Appellant€filed€his€notice€of€appeal€more€thanÐ  ` Ðthirty€days€after€the€order€dismissing€his€petition€was€entered;€thus,€rendering€it€untimely.€Ð ü L  ÐNotwithstanding,€this€court€may€waive€an€untimely€filing€of€a€notice€of€appeal€"in€the€interest€ofÐ è 8  Ðjustice."€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Scalesóó,€767€S.W.2d€157€(Tenn.1989);€òòsee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e)€&€4(a).€Ð Ô$  ÐIn€this€case,€we€waive€the€filing€requirement€and€choose€to€address€the€issues€raised€by€Appellant.Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€first€argues€on€appeal€that€he€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€Ð ˜è  ÐHe€assigns€numerous€factual€grounds€for€ineffectiveness,€including:€(1)€failure€to€interviewÐ „Ô  Ðwitnesses,€(2)€failure€to€submit€articles€of€clothing€of€victim€for€ð ðhair€and€blood€analysis,ðð€(3)€failureÐ pÀ Ðto€object€to€hearsay€evidence,€(4)€failure€to€properly€cross„examine€witnesses€at€trial,€(5)€failure€toÐ \¬ Ðð ðfile€motion€to€produce€physical€evidence,ðð€and€(6)€trial€counsel€erred€in€advising€petitioner€ð ðnot€toÐ H˜ Ðtestify€in€his€own€defense.ðð€€As€previously€noted,€the€Appellantððs€allegations€in€his€petition€beforeÐ 4„ Ðthe€post„conviction€court€focused€solely€upon€ineffectiveness€of€appellate€counsel€while€AppellantððsÐ  p Ðargument€on€appeal€focuses€upon€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€at€trial€and€upon€entirely€differentÐ  \ Ðreasons€and€factual€grounds.€€This€courtððs€review€is€appellate€only.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„5„108.€Ð øH ÐThus,€we€are€precluded€from€reviewing€issues€of€fact€which€have€been€raised€for€the€first€time€uponÐ ä4 Ðappeal.€€òòóóòòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€36;€òòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€902€(Tenn.€1990).€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àSecond,€the€Appellant€argues€on€appeal€that€his€conviction€was€based€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðð ðunconstitutional€failure€of€the€prosecution€to€disclose€exculpatory€evidence,€citing€as€authorityÐ ”ä ÐòòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83,€83€S.€Ct.€1194€(1963)."€€The€evidence€referred€to€by€the€AppellantÐ €Ð Ðconsists€of€ð ðarticles€of€clothingðð€worn€by€the€accomplice€which€were€forwarded€to€the€FBI€crime€labÐ l¼ Ðfor€forensic€testing.€€No€testing€of€these€ð ðarticlesðð€was€conducted€by€the€FBI.€€Relief€under€òòBradyóóÐ X ¨ Ðis€not€available€unless€the€Appellant€can€establish€that€the€evidence€improperly€withheld€wasÐ D!” Ðmaterial€to€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.€Edginóó€902€S.W.2d€387,€389€(Tenn.€1995).€€Because€testing€onÐ 0"€  Ðthe€articles€was€never€completed,€there€is€no€showing€that€the€evidence€was€exculpatory€to€theÐ #l! ÐAppellant€or€material€to€the€defense.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThird,€the€Appellant€contends€that€the€State€failed€to€furnish€ð ðJencks€Actðð€material€at€trial.€Ð à%0!$ ÐThe€Post„Conviction€Act€provides€a€method€by€which€a€defendant€may€challenge€a€conviction€orÐ Ì&"% Ðsentence€for€violation€of€a€state€or€federal€constitutional€right.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„203.€€TheÐ ¸'#& Ðrequirement€that€the€State€produce€statements€of€witnesses€under€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Ð ° ÐP.€26.2,€commonly€referred€to€as€Jenckððs€material,€confers€a€procedural€right€as€opposed€to€aÐ œì Ðconstitutional€right.€€Accordingly,€this€claim,€even€if€valid,€is€not€cognizable€in€a€post„convictionÐ ˆØ Ðproceeding.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFourth,€the€Appellant€€argues€that€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€should€be€grantedÐ L œ Ðbased€on€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidence.ðð€€Specifically,€he€lists€various€witnesses€who€are€willing€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestify€that€his€co„defendant,€Roy€Easley,€admitted€to€being€the€person€who€killed€the€victim.€€Again,Ð $ t Ða€€petition€for€post„conviction€is€limited€to€constitutional€error.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(1);Ð  ` Ðòòbut€seeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(2)(a€petitioner€may€file€a€motion€in€the€trial€court€to€reopenÐ ü L  Ðthe€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€where€the€claim€in€the€motion€is€based€upon€new€scientificÐ è 8  Ðevidence€establishing€that€the€petitioner€is€actually€innocent€of€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€theÐ Ô$  Ðpetitioner€is€convicted).€€In€the€present€case,€the€newly€discovered€evidence€constitutes€neitherÐ À  Ðscientific€proof€nor€constitutional€error.€€As€such,€this€issue€is€also€without€merit.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Appellant€again€on€appeal€challenges€€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidenceÐ „Ô  Ðcontending€that,€ð ðA€verdict€of€guilty€and€reasonable€doubt€clearly€existed€in€this€case.ðð€€€Specifically,Ð pÀ Ðhe€argues€at€length€that€his€conviction€was€based€solely€ð ðupon€the€testimony€of€a€co„defendantðð€andÐ \¬ Ðthat€no€evidence€was€presented€at€trial€to€prove€accomplice€corroboration.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àÔ#†X{ðXXX{ðÄ #ÔAn€action€for€post„conviction€relief€is€a€collateral€proceeding€rather€than€an€appeal€from€theÐ  p Ðunderlying€judgment€of€conviction.€€It€may€not€serve€as€a€substitute€for€a€direct€appeal.€€Rulings€onÐ  \ Ðissues€that€were€previously€raised€at€trial€or€on€direct€appeal€and€issues€that€could€have€been€raisedÐ øH Ðin€earlier€proceedings€but€were€not,€are€ordinarily€deemed€waived.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„Ð ä4 Ð206(f)(g)(h).€€Principles€of€waiver€and€issues€previously€determined€narrow€the€range€of€issuesÐ Ð  Ðavailable€to€a€post„conviction€petitioner€to€ð ðan€abridgement€of€any€right€guaranteed€by€theÐ ¼  ÐConstitution€of€Tennessee€or€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„209.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€the€direct€appeal€of€this€case,€a€panel€of€this€court€held:Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  à[W]e€conclude€that€[Easleyððs]€testimony€is€sufficiently€corroborated.€€.€.€.€€TheÐ X ¨ Ðcorroboration€of€Mr.€Easleyððs€testimony€showed€that€the€defendant€went€with€Mr.Ð D!” ÐEasley€to€the€victimððs€house€to€obtain€money,€that€the€defendant€was€in€the€houseÐ 0"€  Ðwhen€the€victim€was€killed,€and€that€the€defendant€watched€the€stolen€items€whileÐ #l! ÐMr.€Easley€searched€for€a€buyer.€€From€this€corroboration,€the€jury€could€rationallyÐ $X" Ðconclude€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt€that€Mr.€Easley€testified€truthfully€about€theÐ ô$D # Ðdefendantððs€involvement€and€that€the€defendant€was€guilty€of€felony€murder€andÐ à%0!$ Ðespecially€aggravated€robbery.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌòòÔ‡X{ðXXX{ðÔState€v.€Tarran€Kylesóó,€No.€02C01„9807„CC„00203€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€July€15,€1999),Ð ¤(ô#' Ðòòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Nov.€29,€1999).Ô#†X{ðXXX{ðä.#Ô€€Because€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€andÐ )à$( Ðthe€underlying€issue€of€corroboration€of€accomplice€testimony€was€previously€determined€on€directÐ |*Ì%) Ðappeal,€this€issue€may€not€again€be€relitigated€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.Ð h+¸&* ÐÔ‡X{ðXXX{ðÔÌà  àFor€the€reasons€stated,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Madison€County€Circuit€CourtÐ œì Ðdismissing€the€Appellantððs€post„conviction€petition€without€an€evidentiary€hearing.Ô#†X{ðXXX{ðô0#ÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE