ÿWPCž …# VUNa %¯ 0(µU:Ýw@ 4W k z 0§‚ 0D) U:m 0J§ 0Tñ 0^E 0h£ 0r 0|} 0†ù 0 1u 0d„ BèU>U*CB)mDC– AMÙ&v~5 D3³vÓæ 0@¹ AOùÆH 0D D/R B˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡, øð AZ"Arial Regular PEU V D U U Ó€uM%Ôl03|x(W(2µY$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XXXXXÔÒ4°ÒÒX°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó, øð AZ"Arial Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌAugust€20,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h""""'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÔ€$ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑòòÔ  ÔÑ7€XXXdðdÈ7ÑÙ€€ÙßR€'(&A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEóóÌà@ àFEBRUARY€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓÌJABARI€ISSA€MANDELA,€à àà àœ*›à àNo.€01C01„9610„CR„00459€ÌF/K/A€JOHN€HENRY€WOODEN,à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àœ*›Ìà àà àAppellant,à àà àà àà àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àœà à*›ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àHonorable€Ann€Lacy€Johns,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àœà à*›ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à(Post„Conviction)Ìœà àà àà àà àà àà à*›Ìà àà àAppellee.à àà àà àÌœà àà àà àà àà àà à*›ÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:òòà àà àà àà àFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJabari€Issa€Mandela,€pro€seà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ#96305€€€à àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌCCA„SCCF,€€P.O.€Box€279ÌClifton,€TN€€38425„0279à àà àà àDaryl€J.€BrandÌ(on€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCordell€Hull€Building,€Second€FloorÌStan€Allenà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌ209€10th€Avenue€Southà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌSuite€511à àà àà àà àà àà àÌCummins€Stationà àà àà àà àRoger€D.€MooreÌNashville,€TN€€37203à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ(at€hearing)à àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649ÌÌÌœÌÌOPINION›€FILED:__________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÇÓÓà@ àòòOPINIONÌà àà àóóThe€petitioner,€Jabari€Issa€Mandela,€appeals€the€trial€court's€denial€ofÏpost„conviction€relief.€€He€presents€the€following€issues€for€our€review:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€€€whether€prosecutors€withheld€evidence€in€violationÏof€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó€and€whether€imposition€of€theÏstatute€of€limitations€violates€due€process;€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)€€€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€providing€theÏpetitioner€with€a€full€and€fair€hearing€to€present€all€claimsÏregarding€reasonable€doubt€jury€instructions€andÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel;€andÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)€€€whether€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€by€notÏallowing€access€to€physical€evidence€for€performance€ofÏnew€scientific€testing.ÓÓÌÌà àà àWe€find€no€error€and€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.ÌÌà àà àIn€1982,€the€petitioner,€then€named€John€Henry€Wooden,€wasÏconvicted€of€second€degree€burglary,€aggravated€assault,€aggravated€sexualÏbattery,€and€aggravated€rape.€€Respectively,€his€sentences€were€six€to€fifteen€years,Ïthree€to€nine€years,€thirty„five€years€and€life;€all€sentences€are€being€servedÏconsecutively.€€The€convictions€were€upheld€on€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Woodenóó,Ï658€S.W.2d€553€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1983).€€In€his€first€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€alleged€ineffective€assistance€of€counselÍand€lack€of€impartiality€on€the€part€of€the€trial€judge.€€That€petition€was€dismissedÏafter€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€This€court€affirmed.€€òòJohn€Henry€Wooden€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ï85„290„III€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Oct.€3,€1986),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1987).€ÏThe€second€post„conviction€petition,€in€which€the€petitioner€alleged€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€and€the€use€of€perjured€testimony€by€the€state,€wasÏdismissed€without€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€This€court€affirmed,€finding€the€issuesÏeither€previously€determined€or€waived.€€òòState€v.€John€Henry€Woodenóó,€No.€86„74„IIIÏ(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Nov.€19,€1986),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1987).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€filed€a€third€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€May€ofÏ1993€contending€that€he€was€denied€due€process€of€law€because€the€stateÏwithheld€exculpatory€evidence.€€The€petitioner€maintained€that€he€first€discoveredÏthe€evidence€in€1992€after€making€a€request€for€police€records€under€theÏTennessee€Public€Records€Law,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€10„7„501,€and€the€ruling€inÏòòFreeman€v.€Jeffcoatóó,€No.€01A01„9103„CV„00086€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Aug.Ï30,€1991),€òòapp.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1992).€€Until€1992,€the€petitioner€had€beenÏunsuccessful€in€obtaining€the€records€because€police€had€denied€him€access€to€theÏfiles.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€petitioner's€claims€were€barred€by€the€statute€ofÏlimitations.€€The€petition€was€dismissed€without€the€appointment€of€counsel€or€anÏevidentiary€hearing.€€On€appeal,€this€court€affirmed€in€part,€finding€most€of€theÍpetitioner's€claims€had€been€waived€or€previously€determined.€€òòWooden€v.€Stateóó,Ï898€S.W.2d€752,€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€The€case€was,€however,€remandedÏto€the€trial€court€for€appointment€of€counsel€and€an€evidentiary€hearing:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àUpon€remand,€the€trial€court€should€consider€firstÏwhether€the€evidence€[police€reports€discoveredÏpursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Public€Records€Law]€is€in€factÏexculpatory.€€If€so,€it€can€then€determine€whether€theÏevidence€supports€the€application€of€the€òòBurfordóó€dueÏprocess€exception€to€the€statute€of€limitations.€€If€each€ofÏthese€questions€is€resolved€in€the€affirmative,€the€trialÏcourt€may€then€consider€appropriate€relief.ÓÓÌòòId.óó,€898€S.W.2d€at€755.ÌÌà@ àà@ àIÌà àà àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€held€an€evidentiary€hearing.€€YvonneÏSanders,€a€friend€to€the€petitioner,€testified€that€she€made€a€Request€to€InspectÏPublic€Records€on€June€24,€1992,€and€mailed€police€department€records€to€theÏpetitioner€in€September€of€1992.€€The€district€attorney's€office€mailed€its€recordsÏsometime€after€January€5,€1993.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€hearing,€attorney€Henry€Martin€testified€that€he€had€representedÏthe€petitioner€at€trial.€€He€had€taken€over€the€case€from€attorney€Richard€McGee.€ÏHe€recalled€that€he€and€McGee€had€filed€pretrial€discovery€motions.€€MartinÍrecalled€that€identification€was€the€key€issue€at€trial.Ìà àÌà àà àPetitioner's€post„conviction€counsel€showed€Martin€numerous€exhibitsÏto€see€if€he€could€recall€whether€he€had€the€documents€prior€to€trial.€€Martin'sÏresponses€varied.€€To€clarify€which€documents€Martin€had€before€trial,€petitioner'sÏcounsel€introduced€an€affidavit€and€attachments€prepared€by€Martin€in€NovemberÏof€1984€for€the€hearing€on€the€first€petition€for€post„conviction.€€The€affidavit€andÏattachments€had€served€to€establish€what€discovery€the€state€had€provided€theÏdefense€before€trial.€€Martin€acknowledged€that€his€affidavit€and€attachments€fromÏ1984€would€be€more€accurate€than€his€memory.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€heard€this€testimony€and€the€arguments€of€counsel€and,Ïafter€carefully€scrutinizing€these€documents,€dismissed€the€petition,€finding€that€theÏpetitioner€"totally€failed€to€carry€his€burden€of€persuasion."€€The€trial€courtÏconcluded€that€the€state€did€not€withhold€exculpatory€information.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€landmark€case€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€the€United€StatesÏSupreme€Court€ruled€that€the€prosecutor€has€a€duty€to€furnish€exculpatory€evidenceÏto€the€defendant.€€373€U.S.€83,€87€(1963).€€Exculpatory€evidence€may€pertain€to€theÏguilt€or€innocence€of€the€accused€and/or€the€punishment€which€may€be€imposed€ifÍthe€accused€is€convicted€of€the€crime.€€òòState€v.€Marshallóó,€845€S.W.2d€228€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1992).€€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòBradyóó€reasoned€that€a€fair€trial€and€a€justÏresult€could€not€be€obtained€when,€at€the€time€of€trial,€the€prosecution€suppressedÏinformation€favorable€to€the€accused.€€òòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87„88.€ÌÌà àà àAny€"suppression€by€the€prosecution€of€evidence€favorable€to€anÏaccused€upon€request€violates€due€process€where€the€evidence€is€material€eitherÏto€guilt€or€punishment,€irrespective€of€the€good€faith€or€bad€faith€of€the€prosecution."€ÏòòBradyóó,€373€U.S.€at€87.€€This€duty€to€disclose€extends€to€all€favorable€informationÏirrespective€of€whether€the€evidence€is€admissible.€€òòBranch€v.€Stateóó,€469€S.W.2dÏ533€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1969).€€Information€useful€for€impeaching€a€witness€isÏconsidered€favorable€information€that€the€prosecutor€may€not€withhold.€€òòGiglio€v.ÏUnited€Statesóó,€405€U.S.€150€(1972).€€And,€while€òòBradyóó€does€not€require€the€state€toÏinvestigate€for€the€defendant,€it€does€burden€the€prosecution€with€the€responsibilityÏof€disclosing€statements€of€witnesses€favorable€to€the€defense.€€òòState€v.€Reynoldsóó,Ï671€S.W.2d€854,€856€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€The€duty€does€not€extend€toÏinformation€that€the€defense€already€possesses€or€is€able€to€obtain€or€to€informationÏnot€in€the€possession€or€control€of€the€prosecution.€€òòBanks€v.€Stateóó,€556€S.W.2d€88,Ï90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977).ÌÌà àà àBefore€this€court€may€find€a€due€process€violation€under€òòBradyóó,€theÏfollowing€elements€must€be€established:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ1.€€€The€defendant€must€have€requested€the€informationÏ(unless€the€evidence€is€obviously€exculpatory,€in€whichÏcase€the€State€is€bound€to€release€the€informationÏwhether€requested€or€not);ÌÌ2.€€€[t]he€State€must€have€suppressed€the€information;ÌÌ3.€€€[t]he€information€must€have€been€favorable€to€theÏaccused;€andÌÌ4.€€€[t]he€information€must€have€been€material.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòState€v.€Edginóó,€902€S.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.€1995)€(as€amended€on€rehearing).ÌÌà àà àIn€òòEdginóó,€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€following€standard€forÏmateriality:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[T]here€is€constitutional€error€"if€there€is€a€reasonableÏprobability€that,€had€the€evidence€been€disclosed€to€theÏdefense,€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€beenÏdifferent."€...€"[T]he€touchstone€of€materiality€is€aÏ'reasonable€probability'€of€a€different€result,€and€theÏadjective€is€important.€€The€question€is€not€whether€theÏdefendant€would€more€likely€than€not€have€received€aÏdifferent€verdict€with€the€evidence,€but€whether€in€itsÏabsence€he€received€a€fair€trial,€understood€as€a€trialÏresulting€in€a€verdict€worthy€of€confidence.€€AÏ'reasonable€probability'€of€a€different€result€isÏaccordingly€shown€when€the€government's€evidentiaryÏsuppression€'undermines€confidence€in€the€outcome€ofÏthe€trial.'"ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòEdginóó,€902€S.W.2d€at€390„91€(quoting€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€115€S.€Ct.€1555,€1566Ï(1995)).ÌÌà àà àTo€prevail€on€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€a€petitioner€mustÏprove€a€constitutional€violation€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.ÏSpurlockóó,€874€S.W.2d€602,€610€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€This€court€is€bound€byÏthe€post„conviction€court's€findings€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€ÏòòButler€v.€Stateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899€(Tenn.€1990).€€This€court€may€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÏpost„conviction€court.€€Moreover,€questions€concerning€the€credibility€of€witnessesÏand€weight€and€value€to€be€given€their€testimony€are€for€resolution€by€theÏpost„conviction€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).ÌÌà àà àComparing€the€affidavit€attachments€with€the€records€obtained€inÏ1992€and€1993,€we€have€determined€that€the€state€failed€to€disclose€some€thirtyÏdocuments€concerning€their€investigation€of€the€petitioner.€€€Of€those€thirtyÏdocuments,€only€those€pertaining€to€victims€Terri€Tipps,€Denise€Bolton€and€ReneÏNorthcutt€bear€scrutiny.€€The€remaining€documents€pertain€to€counts€of€theÍindictment€that€were€severed€and€dismissed,€resulted€in€not€guilty€verdicts,€or€wereÏmistried.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€each€of€the€following€instances,€we€conclude€that€the€petitionerÏrequested€the€information€and€that€the€state€failed€to€supply€an€appropriateÏresponse.€€Defense€counsel€entered€a€proper€discovery€motion€pre„trial€and€yet€theÏpetitioner€did€not€obtain€the€documents€until€years€after€the€trial.€€The€question€forÏthis€court€is€whether€the€documents€contain€any€information€that€qualifies€as€bothÏfavorable,€as€defined€in€òòBradyóó,€and€material,€as€defined€in€òòKyles€v.€Whitleyóó.ÌÌà@ à(a)Ìà àà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€Ms.€Tipps€gave€false€or€inconsistentÏtestimony€at€trial.€€Exhibit€7€is€a€crime€scene€search€report€listing€potential€evidenceÏobtained€from€Ms.€Tipps'€apartment.€€The€report€indicates€that€the€weather€wasÏcloudy€and€mild€and€notes€the€presence€of€artificial€lighting.€€At€trial,€Ms.€TippsÏdescribed€the€weather€on€the€day€of€her€attack€as€sunny.€€Although€the€informationÏis€inconsistent€with€trial€testimony,€we€do€not€view€this€as€material.€€The€crimeÏoccurred€during€the€day.€€While€identification€was€a€major€issue€at€trial,€theÏpetitioner€never€asserted€that€the€lack€of€available€lighting€was€an€obstacle.ÌÌà àà àNor€do€we€find€material€Exhibit€8,€a€document€listing€a€number€ofÏassaults€in€Nashville,€which€has€a€column€headed€"Identification."€€Under€theÏcolumn€coinciding€with€Ms.€Tipps'€address,€someone€wrote,€"Yes?"€€The€petitionerÏtherefore€claims€that€there€was€some€question€about€his€being€adequatelyÏidentified€at€some€point€during€the€investigation.ÌÌà àà àAn€inference€may€be€that€an€unnamed€investigator€may€haveÏquestioned€whether€Ms.€Tipps€could€identify€her€attacker.€€In€a€pre„trial€lineup€andÏat€trial,€she€positively€identified€the€petitioner€as€her€assailant.€€The€origin€andÏmeaning€of€the€question€mark€is€debatable.€€Certainly,€Ms.€Tipps€was€not€theÏauthor.€€Otherwise,€any€interpretation€would€qualify€as€speculative.ÌÌà àà àExhibit€9€is€a€police€report€describing€the€attack€and€documentingÏsupplemental€interviews€with€Ms.€Tipps€concerning€her€whereabouts€and€well„being.€€This€information€is€not€remotely€exculpatory.€€ÌÌà àà àExhibit€10,€a€TBI€request€for€an€exam€prepared€by€Officer€Dobson,Ïcontains€a€summary€of€the€offense,€"Victim€returned€to€her€apt.€to€find€suspect€in€herÏapt.€Suspect€slapped,€scratched,€and€vaginally€raped€victim."€€This€summaryÏstatement€was€neither€attributed€to€nor€adopted€by€Ms.€Tipps.€€The€petitionerÍmaintains€that€this€statement€of€facts,€which€places€the€suspect€inside€theÏapartment€when€the€victim€arrived,€is€inconsistent€with€Ms.€Tipps'€trial€testimony.€€AtÏtrial,€she€testified€that€she€was€in€her€apartment€and€the€petitioner€intruded€uponÏher.€€Her€pretrial€statements€to€police€similarly€described€the€incident.€€While€weÏagree€that€the€summary€statement€by€Officer€Dobson€is€inconsistent€with€the€trialÏtestimony,€the€inconsistency€is€not€material€to€any€issue€at€trial.ÌÌà àà àExhibit€36,€a€police€report,€indicates€that€Ms.€Tipps€agreed€to€view€aÏlineup€and€Exhibit€40€is€a€copy€of€the€lineup€identification€card.€€The€petitioner€doesÏnot€clarify€how€these€forms€relate€to€his€argument.€€Thus,€he€has€failed€to€showÏeither€favorableness€or€materiality.€ÌÌà@ à(b)Ìà àà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€Ms.€Bolton's€trial€testimony€wasÏinconsistent€with€her€prior€statements€and€that€she€actually€identified€another€manÏas€her€assailant.ÌÌà àà àExhibit€13€is€a€police€report€which€states€the€suspect€used€mace€andÏplaced€a€towel€over€Ms.€Bolton's€face.€€Exhibit€14,€an€incident€report€listing€Ms.ÏBolton€as€the€complainant,€indicates€that€a€sack€rather€than€a€towel€was€used;€thereÍis€no€mention€of€mace.€€These€documents€contained€information€that€may€haveÏbeen€useful€for€cross„examination€of€Ms.€Bolton.€€Yet,€Ms.€Bolton€described€theÏattack€consistently€in€her€pre„trial€statement€to€investigators,€as€noted€in€a€policeÏreport,€and€in€her€testimony€at€trial.€€She€positively€identified€the€petitioner€in€a€pre„trial€lineup€conducted€in€January€of€1982€and€again€at€trial.€€In€light€of€her€testimonyÏas€a€whole,€we€do€not€find€this€discrepancy€to€be€material.€ÌÌà àà àExhibit€15,€dated€August€31,€1981,€is€a€photographic€lineupÏidentification€form€and€a€collection€of€photographs.€€Officer€Vaughn,€who€filled€outÏthe€form,€wrote:€"(while€holding€no.€five)€'This€looks€like€the€man€that€came€in€onÏme.€I€think€this€is€him€but€I€can't€be€sure.'"€€The€form€indicates€that€Ms.€Boltonò ò€ó ófailedÏto€identify€anyone€at€that€time.€€From€the€record,€we€cannot€determine€whether€theÏphotograph€of€the€petitioner€was€among€those€in€the€array.€€In€consequence,€heÏhas€not€demonstrated€how€this€particular€evidence€is€either€favorable€or€material.ÌÌà àà àExhibit€16€is€a€police€report€written€by€an€investigating€officer€madeÏafter€a€discussion€with€Ms.€Bolton€on€July€8,€1981:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[S]he€stated€that€a€m/b€fitting€the€description€of€theÏsuspect€as€far€as€she€was€able€[to]€determine€visited€aÏm/b€that€lives€beneath€her.€€She€found€out€that€his€nameÏis€James€L.€Smith.€ÌÓÓÌThe€petitioner€maintains€that€Ms.€Bolton€was€referring€to€James€L.€Smith€as€herÏassailant,€not€the€neighbor€who€lived€in€an€apartment€beneath€her.€€In€our€view,€thisÏreference€is€ambiguous€and€could€apply€to€either€the€neighbor€or€the€suspect.€€TheÏburden€in€a€post„conviction€case€is€on€the€petitioner€to€demonstrate€his€claim€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence.€€He€has€not€done€so€on€this€issue.ÌÌà@ à(c)Ìà àà àThe€petitioner€also€argues€that€he€was€unable€to€establish€an€alibiÏregarding€the€attempted€rape€of€Ms.€Northcutt€because€the€state€withheld€evidence.€ÏExhibit€17€indicates€that€witnesses€Joy€Andrus€and€Patricia€Rust€viewed€a€lineupÏon€January€20,€1982,€in€an€effort€to€determine€the€identity€of€a€€suspicious€manÏseen€in€the€vicinity€of€Ms.€Northcutt's€apartment€complex.€€Ms.€Andrus€identified€theÏpetitioner€as€the€man€she€saw€loitering€in€the€area€several€days€before€Ms.ÏNorthcutt€was€attacked.€€Ms.€Rust€had€seen€a€suspicious€man€leaving€the€buildingÏat€about€12:30€the€day€of€the€attack.€€Although€she€did€not€get€a€good€look€at€hisÏface,€she€saw€the€suspect€get€in€a€new,€light€blue€Cutlass.€€Ms.€Rust€was€unable€toÏidentify€the€petitioner€in€the€lineup.€€€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€Detective€Vaughn,€who€had€conducted€the€lineup,€was€askedÍwho€had€viewed€the€lineups.€€Detective€Vaughn€mentioned€several€names€but€notÏMs.€Rust.€€The€petitioner€contends€this€information€would€have€been€useful€inÏcross„examining€Detective€Vaughn€at€trial.€€Detective€Vaughn,€however,€was€not€anÏimportant€witness€against€the€petitioner.€€Thus,€the€verdict€retains€its€reliabilityÏdespite€this€marginally€favorable€evidence.€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€maintains€that€Ms.€Rust's€inability€to€identify€theÏpetitioner€in€a€lineup€is€also€significant€because€she€"place[s]€the€assailant€in€theÏmost€southern€part€of€the€county€...€when€appellant€was€seen€by€more€than€threeÏwitnesses€in€the€most€northern€part€of€the€county€...€less€than€thirty€minutes€after€theÏassault."€€Ms.€Rust€did€not€testify€at€trial.€€The€petitioner€presented€proof€of€his€alibiÏat€trial.€€His€girlfriend€testified€that€she€telephoned€him€at€home€shortly€after€12:30ÏP.M.€on€the€day€Ms.€Northcutt€was€attacked.€€This€additional€evidence€would€notÏhave€been€all€that€favorable€and€is€of€dubious€materiality€in€the€context€of€the€entireÏtrial.€ÌÌà àà àFinally,€the€petitioner€contends€that€Exhibit€18A,€a€police€report,€isÏinconsistent€with€Ms.€Northcutt's€trial€testimony€and€pre„trial€statement.€€The€policeÏreport€shows€the€time€of€assault€as€12:10€P.M.€and€describes€the€assailant€asÏwearing€a€"blue€sweat€coat€with€hood."€€The€report€also€indicates€the€assailant€leftÍMs.€Northcutt's€apartment€to€get€"val[i]um."€€At€trial,€Ms.€Northcutt€testified€that€theÏattack€occurred€shortly€after€11:15€A.M.;€she€described€her€attacker€as€wearing€aÏ"blue€sweatshirt€with€a€hood"€and€recalled€that€he€left€her€apartment€to€getÏ"Quaaludes."€€These€minor€distinctions€cast€no€doubt€on€the€reliability€of€the€verdict.€ÏIn€our€view,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€demonstrate€this€information€is€significantlyÏmaterial€or€favorable.€€€ÌÌà àà àBecause€none€of€the€information€suppressed€by€the€state€qualified€asÏexculpatory,€whether€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€is€violative€of€dueÏprocess€need€not€be€addressed.€€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àThe€petitioner's€remaining€claims€are€waived€or€previouslyÏdetermined€and€barred€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€The€post„conviction€statute€inÏeffect€when€the€petition€was€filed€defines€waiver:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à(b)(1)€€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitionerÏknowingly€and€understandingly€failed€to€present€it€forÏdetermination€in€any€proceeding€before€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€haveÏbeen€presented.ÌÌà à(2)€€There€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€that€aÏground€for€relief€not€raised€in€any€such€proceedingÍwhich€was€held€was€waived.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)€(repealed€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àOur€supreme€court€has€held€that€"the€rebuttable€presumption€ofÏwaiver€is€not€overcome€by€an€allegation€that€the€petitioner€did€not€personally,Ïknowingly,€and€understandingly€fail€to€raise€a€ground€for€relief."€€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,Ï911€S.W.2d€705,€714€(Tenn.€1995).€€"Waiver€in€the€post„conviction€context€is€to€beÏdetermined€by€an€objective€standard€under€which€a€petitioner€is€bound€by€theÏaction€or€inaction€of€his€attorney."€€òòId.óó€ÌÌà àà àAny€petitioner€whose€judgment€became€final€before€July€1,€1986,€hadÏonly€three€years€thereafter€to€file€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„30„102€(repealed€1995).€€Here€the€petitioner's€judgment€became€final€onÏOctober€11,€1983.€€He€had€until€July€1,€1989€to€file€his€post„conviction€petition.€ÏòòAbston€v.€Stateóó,€749€S.W.2d€487,€488€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€The€1995€Act€didÏnot€enlarge€the€time€within€which€this€petitioner€could€file€as€"the€enabling€provisionÏ...€is€not€intended€to€revive€claims€that€were€barred€by€the€previous€[three„year]Ïstatute€of€limitations."€€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€952€S.W.2d€417,€419€(Tenn.€1997).ÌÌà àà àRegardless,€the€petitioner€would€not€prevail€on€the€merits.€€HeÏcomplains€that€the€trial€court€denied€him€a€full€and€fair€hearing€on€issue€ofÏreasonable€doubt€jury€instructions.€€The€trial€court€refused€to€allow€the€petitioner€toÏproceed€pro€se€as€he€was€represented€by€"imminently€qualified€counsel."€€There€isÏno€entitlement€to€proceed€pro€se.€€òòState€v.€Gillespieóó,€898€S.W.2d€738,€741€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1994).€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€court€provided€the€following€reasonable€doubt€instruction:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àBy€reasonable€doubt€is€not€meant€that€which€ofÏpossibility€may€arise,€but€is€that€doubt€engendered€by€anÏinvestigation€of€the€whole€proof,€and€an€inability,€afterÏsuch€investigation,€to€let€the€mind€rest€easily€as€to€theÏcertainty€of€guilt.€€Absolute€certainty€of€guilt€is€notÏdemanded€by€the€law€to€convict€of€any€criminal€charge,Ïbut€moral€certainty€is€required,€and€this€certainty€isÏrequired€as€to€every€proposition€of€proof€requisite€toÏconstitute€the€offense€and€as€to€every€grade€of€crimeÏcharged€or€included€in€the€indictment.€Ì€ÌÓÓOur€supreme€court€has€consistently€upheld€this€"moral€certainty"€instruction€asÏconsistent€with€the€principles€of€òòCage€v.€Louisianaóó,€498€U.S.€39€(1990).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,ÏòòState€v.€Nicholsóó,€877€S.W.2d€722,€734€(Tenn.€1994);€òòCarter€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2dÏ620€(Tenn.€1997).€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€of€a€denial€of€due€process€because€heÍwas€not€permitted€to€present€proof€that€his€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€toÏhave€the€tape€of€his€preliminary€hearing€transcribed.€€€He€maintains€that€trialÏcounsel's€omission€hampered€his€efforts€to€impeach€state€witnesses€at€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€this€claim€has€been€previously€determined.ÓÓ€€ÓÓ"A€ground€forÏrelief€is€'previously€determined'€if€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€theÏmerits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(a)(1)(repealedÏ1995).€€A€full€and€fair€hearing€is€provided€when€a€petitioner€has€an€opportunity€toÏpresent€the€constitutional€claim€at€a€meaningful€time€and€in€a€meaningful€manner.€ÏòòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€711€(Tenn.€1995).€€Ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€generally€"a€single€ground€for€relief"€under€the€post„conviction€statute.€ÏòòCone€v.€Stateóó,€927€S.W.2d€579,€581„82€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€ÌÌà àà àA€petitioner€may€not€relitigate€previously€determined€grounds€for€reliefÏby€presenting€additional€factual€allegations.€€òòId.óó€The€petitioner€asserted€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€in€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€trial€courtÏheld€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€ruled€on€the€merits€that€the€petitioner€had€receivedÏeffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial.€€This€court€affirmed.€€òòWoodenóó,€No.€85„290„III,Ïslip€op.€at€3.€€The€petitioner€subsequently€claimed€ineffective€assistance€of€trialÏcounsel€in€his€second€and€third€petitions.€€This€court€found€the€claims€to€beÍpreviously€determined.€€òòWoodenóó,€No.€86„74„III,€slip€op.€at€2;€€òòWoodenóó,€898€S.W.2dÏat€754.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€ÌÌà@ àà@ àIIIÌà àà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€the€trial€court€erroneously€ignored€his€proÏse€motion€for€access€to€physical€evidence€for€new€scientific€testing.€€The€stateÏcontends€that€the€petitioner€has€waived€this€issue€by€failing€to€make€a€record.€€TheÏpetitioner€claims€that€because€his€appointed€counsel€refused€to€file€a€motion€forÏaccess€to€physical€evidence,€he€filed€his€own€motion.€€He€asserts€that€because€theÏtrial€court€refused€to€rule€on€the€pro€se€motion,€he€was€denied€the€right€to€be€heard.€€ÌÌà àà àA€person€represented€by€counsel€has€no€right€to€proceed€pro€se.€ÏòòState€v.€Burkhartóó,€541€S.W.2d€365€(Tenn.€1976).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòRicky€Harris€v.€Stateóó,ÏNo.€03C01„9611„CR„00410,€slip€op.€at€32€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Apr.€23,Ï1998),€òòperm.€to€appeal€filedóó,€(June€22,€1998)€(applying€the€rule€in€òòBurkhartóó€to€theÏpost„conviction€setting).€€In€consequence,€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€the€right€toÏbe€heard.€€ÌÌà àà àThis€issue€is€also€waived,€as€the€motion€is€not€included€in€the€record.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€When€the€record€is€incomplete€and€does€not€containÍinformation€relevant€to€a€particular€issue,€this€court€may€not€make€a€ruling.€€òòState€v.ÏCooperóó,€736€S.W.2d€125,€131€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€relies€on€the€Post€Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217€and€the€ruling€in€òòJames€Earl€Ray€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï02C01„9703„CR„00107€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Apr.€9,€1997),€in€assertingÏthat€trial€courts€are€authorized€to€hear€motions€requesting€access€to€physicalÏevidence€for€scientific€testing.ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€petitioner€misreads€both€the€1995€Act€and€theÏdecision€in€òòRayóó.€€The€Act€provides€that€a€petitioner€may€file€a€motion€to€reopen€aÏprior€petition€by€showing€"new€scientific€evidence€establishing€actual€innocence€...Ïand€...€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€have€the€conviction€set€aside."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„30„217(a)(2),(4).€€These€provisions€are€not,€however,€avenues€for€discovery€forÏthe€petitioner.€€òòRayóó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOne€cannot€proceed€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(2)€to€examine€or€test€physical€evidence€inÏgovernmental€control€based€on€allegations€that€such€anÏexamination€or€test€òòcouldóó€establish€actual€innocence.€...ÏThis€statute€is€designed€for€the€extraordinary€case€whenÏone€òòhasóó€scientific€evidence€that€establishes€actualÏinnocence.€....ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€(emphasis€in€original).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌœÇCONCUR:›ÌÌÌœÌ________________________________›ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€œSpecial€Judge›ÌÌÌœÌ________________________________›ÌCurwood€Witt,€JudgeÔ€#Ô