ÿWPC `…»êgšÐIâæô/,´”XÔüfÆࢇHºhñwj†Öµ‰}9NÁ&ú‘JÔcb¾ Ö™ ‹ë<œ¦'”‡ þíÕQ,9ê¡g‰>ÿ\QOí5¦8:<ý9tp:‰P5¼‰Ä^j)í´Jé c­nÔªPù H™wuëZŠf$lÂŒ±›Qâ¿K_ç¯m¡? d°~1Òj…wÕŒ[îHì?«fWN…M¾m#­œ “¶yT¯… 0ywÂá¬6u9D‚;,Üì¹nB,žð›OôK€F[ë§Õþ“œ¿÷ 4Eï?®Ðœ§ÈHõËãòÏVü ‘¶²!ÓW!õꔤêcÎXñ5';L@¨\¥lcú‰#à¯éOCA—mó¯Ãm‘&„ŽN]‘ëZ¦î©B”óYÌÍ‹=¼ RœÙÜèÆá£ÕI7É<$ë¦ôFˆÈü³‡ª¹_!”Ĥt mÀX¡yT–‹®i²ã¨5ðÐy>‰8¥ÊcB("Õ®42 ÂÉÒK°ËËIz%*xbáíú‹”mÊ:ãÝsxæÍmYøxKÙ>ɱ wiüÍsúíUQßÔ‰Ý׳mkYߟËYÄQÆ5̆çÑ“³¨OÌ<[a­Â'WC–D9Wb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U N‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ11N÷÷÷Eùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D3¯ D-â 0K ASZÆ­ 0¤s 0D A«[ »œf+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularHEô*'•m  3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- ù-(|G2ÂÊ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôuPò»»Ô d(|3…ä$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3…ä$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Œ»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ ¼§»» »ÔÑ8€f\XXdê»»d 8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡ îî» ¼§ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#† ¼§»î î #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€May€23,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡ X@kX» ¼§ÔÌò òÔ#† ¼§»X X@k#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€GEORGE€E.€RATLIFFÔ‡ X@kX» ¼§Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òConsolidated€Direct€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€23301€€€€€€Lynn€W.€Brown,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„01214„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐAugust€27,€2001Ð ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#† ¼§»X X@kŠ#ÔÔ€ X@kX» ¼§ÔÌThe€defendant,€George€E.€Ratliff,€was€convicted€by€a€jury€of€rape€of€a€child.€€In€this€consolidatedÐ d´ Ðappeal,€Defendant€alleges€various€errors€by€the€trial€court,€challenges€his€sentence,€and€appeals€theÐ P  Ðdismissal€of€his€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€on€the€ground€of€untimely€filing.€€After€aÐ <Œ Ðreview€of€the€record€and€applicable€law,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€summary€dismissal€ofòòóó€theÐ (x Ðpetition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€based€on€the€recent€decision€of€our€supreme€court€in€òòWorkmanÐ d Ðv.€Stateóó,€41€S.W.3d€100€(Tenn.€2001).€€We€remand€this€matter€to€the€trial€court€for€a€hearing€on€theÐ P Ðmerits€of€the€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.€€Pursuant€to€òòState€v.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661Ð ì< Ð(Tenn.€1999),€appellate€proceedings€on€Defendantððs€appeal€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€are€stayed,Ð Ø( Ðpending€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€the€error€coram€nobis€petition.Ð Ä ÐÓ§ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed€in€Part:Ð œì ÐOrder€Dismissing€Petition€for€Writ€of€Error€Coram€Nobis€is€Reversed€and€the€Petition€isÐ ˆØ ÐRemanded€for€an€Evidentiary€Hearing;€Further€Appellate€Proceedings€are€Stayed.ó óÐ tÄ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓThomas€T.€Woodall,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.,óó€andÐ L œ ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyeróó,€J.,€joined.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌSteve€McEwen,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee€(on€appeal);€and€David€F.€Bautista,€District€PublicÐ #`" ÐDefender;€Jeffrey€C.€Kelly,€Assistant€Public€Defender;€and€Deborah€Huskins,€Assistant€PublicÐ ü#L# ÐDefender,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee€(at€trial),€€for€the€appellant,€George€E.€Ratliff.Ð è$8 $ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Angele€M.€Gregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð À&"& ÐJoe€C.€Crumley,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€Steve€Finney,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Ð ¬'ü"' ÐLisa€Rice,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;€Victor€Vaughn,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Ð ˜(è#( Ðand€Janet€Hardin,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð „)Ô$) ÐòòóóÓ| ÓÌÌÌÐ 4-„(-ý Ðà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÓ  Óà  àDefendant€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€I€offender€to€serve€twenty„four€years€in€the€TennesseeÐ ˆØ ÐDepartment€of€Correction€for€his€conviction.€€On€December€7,€1998,€the€trial€court€conducted€aÐ tÄ Ðhearing€on€Defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€courtÐ `° Ðdenied€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial€and€entered€an€order€to€that€effect€the€same€day.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àDefendant€filed€a€timely€notice€of€appeal€challenging€his€conviction€and€sentence€onÐ $ t ÐDecember€15,€1998.€€Slightly€more€than€a€year€later,€on€December€21,€1999,€Defendant€filed€aÐ  ` Ðpetition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€based€on€the€fact€that€the€victim€had€recently€recanted€herÐ ü L  Ðtestimony.€€The€trial€court€summarily€dismissed€the€petition€because€it€was€filed€fourteen€days€pastÐ è 8  Ðthe€expiration€of€the€applicable€one„year€statute€of€limitations.€€Pursuant€to€an€order€from€this€CourtÐ Ô$  Ðdated€September€8,€2000,€Defendantððs€appeal€from€the€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€writ€of€errorÐ À  Ðcoram€nobis€and€his€pending€appeal€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€were€consolidated€to€form€theÐ ¬ü  Ðinstant€appeal€to€this€Court.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌò òà@½½ ìàI.€FACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àDefendant€was€indicted€and€later€convicted€for€sexually€penetrating€his€six„year„old€daughter,Ð H˜ ÐS.B.,€during€the€summer€of€1996.€€(The€victim€shall€be€referred€to€herein€by€her€initials.)€€DefendantÐ 4„ Ðand€the€victimððs€mother,€Rebecca€Jones,€were€in€the€process€of€dissolving€their€seven„year€marriageÐ  p Ðat€that€time,€and€the€custody€of€S.B.€was€a€hotly€contested€issue€between€them.€€S.B.€spent€everyÐ  \ Ðother€weekend€with€Defendant,€who€resided€alone€in€a€small€building€on€his€parentsðð€property.€€HisÐ øH Ðparents,€sister,€and€her€two€children€lived€nearby€in€the€main€house.€€During€S.B.ððs€weekends€withÐ ä4 ÐDefendant,€she€slept€in€the€house€with€the€other€children€except€for€two€episodes€where€S.B.€hadÐ Ð  Ðhead€lice.€€Because€the€risk€of€infecting€her€cousins€was€too€great,€on€these€two€occasions€she€sleptÐ ¼  Ðin€the€small€building€with€Defendant,€who€claimed€that€he€gave€S.B.€his€bed€and€slept€alone€on€theÐ ¨ø Ðrecliner€chair.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àFor€the€most€part,€S.B.€appeared€to€enjoy€visiting€Defendant€and€playing€with€her€cousins.€Ð l¼ ÐOne€weekend€in€September,€however,€S.B.€told€her€mother,€Jones,€that€she€did€not€want€to€seeÐ X ¨ ÐDefendant.€€S.B.€testified€at€trial€that€this€was€because€she€had€just€learned€about€ð ðgood€touchesðð€andÐ D!” Ðð ðbad€touchesðð€from€her€guidance€counselor€at€school.€€The€counselor€told€the€children€that€if€theyÐ 0"€  Ðshould€ever€experience€a€bad€touch,€they€were€to€tell€their€parents.€€Consequently,€S.B.€informedÐ #l! ÐJones€that€Defendant€had€recently€touched€her€between€her€legs€and€put€his€hand€ð ðinside€of€herÐ $X" Ðprivateðð€but€she€did€not€know€that€this€was€wrong€until€she€learned€so€at€school.€€S.B.€also€testifiedÐ ô$D # Ðconcerning€the€way€the€elastic€on€her€panties€would€snap€back€and€hit€her€when€Defendant€removedÐ à%0!$ Ðhis€hand.€€S.B.€claimed€that€Defendant€threatened€to€kill€her€mother€and€grandmother€if€she€ever€toldÐ Ì&"% Ðanyone€about€what€he€had€done€to€her.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àAfter€hearing€S.B.ððs€story€on€September€14,€1996,€Jones€reported€the€incident€to€the€police.€Ð )à$( ÐShortly€thereafter,€Gary€Lee€Wiseman,€an€officer€with€the€Washington€County€Sheriffððs€Department,Ð |*Ì%) Ðcame€to€the€house€to€speak€with€S.B.€€Wiseman€testified€at€trial€that€he€did€not€attempt€to€acquireÐ h+¸&* Ðan€explicit€statement€from€S.B.€during€his€initial€meeting€with€her,€but€called€the€Department€ofÐ ° ÐChildrenððs€Services€(ð ðDCSðð)€for€assistance€because€they€are€more€adept€at€dealing€with€children.€Ð œì ÐRita€Parris,€a€DCS€caseworker,€interviewed€S.B.€on€September€26,€1996,€and€testified€at€trial€thatÐ ˆØ ÐS.B.€had€informed€her€that€Defendant€touched€her€ð ðinside€her€privatesðð€nine€times€in€one€eveningÐ tÄ Ðduring€the€previous€summer€but€he€did€not€hurt€her.€€Ð `° ÐÌà  àParris€referred€S.B.€to€Dr.€Martin€Olsen,€a€licensed€obstetrician€and€gynecologist,€whoÐ 8 ˆ Ðtestified€that€he€examined€S.B.€on€October€31,€1996.€€When€Dr.€Olsen€asked€S.B.€why€she€came€toÐ $ t Ðsee€him,€she€responded,€ð ðDaddy€touched€me€where€he€wasnððt€supposed€to.ðð€€According€to€Dr.Ð  ` ÐOlsenððs€findings,€the€rectum€showed€no€signs€of€trauma,€but€a€colposcopic€evaluation€of€the€hymenÐ ü L  Ðrevealed€an€injury€which€the€doctor€described€as€a€ð ðcleft€at€6€oððclock.ðð€€The€doctor€testified€that€thisÐ è 8  Ðtype€of€injury€is€consistent€with€sexual€abuse€because€something€must€travel€past€both€the€labiaÐ Ô$  Ðmajora€and€the€labia€minora€and€then€penetrate€the€vagina€to€physically€contact€the€hymenal€ring„„Ð À  Ðjumping€up€and€down,€riding€horseback,€and€falling€off€a€bike€will€not€accomplish€this.€€Further,Ð ¬ü  Ðbecause€hymenal€injuries€usually€cause€the€victim€some€pain,€they€are€seldom€self„inflicted.€Ð ˜è  ÐHowever,€Cherie€Ratliff€Morris,€Defendantððs€sister,€who€helped€take€care€of€S.B.€when€she€visited,Ð „Ô  Ðtestified€that€she€witnessed€something€peculiar€while€S.B.€was€bathing€with€her€cousins.€Ð pÀ ÐSpecifically,€S.B.€had€shoved€the€leg€of€a€Barbie€doll€into€her€ð ðpee„pee.ðð€€Morris€was€unable€toÐ \¬ Ðestimate€how€much€of€the€leg€was€inside€of€S.B.,€but€she€claimed€that€none€of€the€dollððs€foot€wasÐ H˜ Ðvisible.€€Morris€did€not€take€S.B.€to€see€a€doctor,€but€cautioned€her€not€to€put€dolls€inside€of€herÐ 4„ Ðanymore€and€then€told€Jones€what€had€happened.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àOfficer€Wiseman€received€Dr.€Olsenððs€medical€report€on€November€6,€1996.€€On€DecemberÐ øH Ð12,€1996,€he€filed€charges€against€Defendant€based€on€the€victimððs€statement€and€medical€report.€Ð ä4 ÐWhen€questioned€at€trial€as€to€why€three€months€transpired€from€the€date€Wiseman€received€theÐ Ð  Ðinitial€report€of€S.B.ððs€abuse€to€the€date€he€filed€charges€against€Defendant,€Wiseman€explained€thatÐ ¼  Ðit€is€not€uncommon€for€some€time€to€pass€between€the€first€report€of€sexual€abuse€and€arrest€of€aÐ ¨ø Ðsuspect.€€Various€factors€can€influence€the€time€frame€for€filing€an€indictment,€including€immediateÐ ”ä Ðdanger€to€the€victim€and€the€Sheriffððs€Departmentððs€current€case€load.€€Wiseman€testified€that,€in€thisÐ €Ð Ðparticular€case,€he€had€been€working€on€a€double€homicide,€which€takes€precedence€over€non„urgentÐ l¼ Ðmatters.€€Moreover,€in€cases€of€sexual€abuse,€medical€reports€must€be€completely€evaluated.€€HeÐ X ¨ Ðexplained€that€it€is€often€advantageous,€to€both€the€accused€and€the€police€department,€to€wait€beforeÐ D!” Ðbringing€charges€and€observe€whether€the€victimððs€story€remains€consistent€throughout€the€interviewÐ 0"€  Ðprocess€and€counseling€sessions.€€In€sum,€Wiseman€stated€that€he€is€seldom€in€a€hurry€to€arrest€aÐ #l! Ðsuspect€unless€the€victim€is€in€danger.€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAt€his€trial,€Defendant€testified€that€he€had€a€good€relationship€with€S.B.€€However,€he€alsoÐ à%0!$ Ðclaimed€that€her€statements€concerning€what€he€did€to€her€were€untruthful.€€Defendant€maintainedÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€S.B.ððs€allegations€of€sexual€abuse€were€part€of€a€conspiracy€against€him,€contrived€by€Jones€andÐ ¸'#& Ðher€mother,€to€prevent€him€from€obtaining€custody€of€S.B.€€Defendant€also€claimed€that€after€he€filedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€temporary€custody€in€July€1996,€Jones€warned€him€that€she€would€do€whatever€was€necessaryÐ )à$( Ðto€keep€Defendant€from€taking€her€child.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Їò òà@YY$ìàII.€€ANALYSISó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€writ€of€error€coramÐ ˆØ Ðnobis€on€the€ground€of€untimely€filing€violated€his€constitutional€rights€to€due€process.€€The€StateÐ tÄ Ðresponds€that€state€law€clearly€requires€that€a€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€not€filed€withinÐ `° Ðthe€one„year€statute€of€limitations€be€dismissed€as€untimely.€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€note€that€a€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€ordinarily€will€be€filed€while€anÐ $ t Ðappeal€is€pending,€because€filing€must€occur€within€one€year€of€the€date€a€judgment€becomes€finalÐ  ` Ðin€the€trial€court€to€be€considered€ð ðtimely.ðð€€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„7„103€(1997);€òòState€v.Ð ü L  ÐMixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661,€671€(Tenn.€1999).€€Therefore,€when€a€defendant€files€his€petition€for€writÐ è 8  Ðof€error€coram€nobis€in€the€trial€court€during€the€pendency€of€an€appeal,€he€shouldÐ Ô$  Ðcontemporaneously€file€a€motion€requesting€that€the€appellate€proceedings€be€stayed€pending€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourtððs€decision€on€that€writ.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€at€672.€€Here,€Defendant€did€not€file€a€motion€to€stay€theÐ ¬ü  Ðappellate€proceeding.€€However,€in€light€of€our€ruling€and€to€promote€judicial€economy,€we€grantÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant€a€stay€of€appellate€proceedings€with€regard€to€the€direct€appeal€of€his€conviction.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWe€further€note€that€the€supreme€court€has€clarified€several€procedural€issues€which€haveÐ \¬ Ðarisen€relating€to€the€operation€of€the€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€in€criminal€proceedings.€€òòMixonóó,€983Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€at€668„73.€€Among€other€things,€the€supreme€court€held€that€in€cases€where€the€trial€courtÐ 4„ Ðgrants€a€defendant€a€new€trial€based€on€his€or€her€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis,€and€the€StateÐ  p Ðappeals,€the€appellate€court€should€first€consider€the€issues€relating€to€the€coram€nobis€proceeding.€Ð  \ ÐòòId.óó€at€672.€€If€the€trial€courtððs€decision€is€affirmed,€the€issues€raised€in€the€defendantððs€appeal€as€ofÐ øH Ðright€become€moot.€€By€contrast,€where€the€trial€court€denies€the€petition€for€writ€of€error€coramÐ ä4 Ðnobis€and€the€defendant€appeals,€the€appellate€court€must€first€address€the€issues€raised€in€theÐ Ð  Ðdefendantððs€appeal€as€of€right.€€òòId.óó€€If€the€appellate€court€determines€that€a€new€trial€is€required€asÐ ¼  Ða€result€of€one€or€more€of€those€issues,€it€need€not€address€the€issues€raised€in€the€coram€nobisÐ ¨ø Ðappeal.€€The€supreme€court€recognized€that€coram€nobis€is€an€extraordinary€procedural€remedy€andÐ ”ä Ðthat,€because€it€ð ðfills€only€a€slight€gap€into€which€few€cases€fall,ðð€it€is€appropriate€that€an€appellateÐ €Ð Ðcourt€consider€whether€relief€is€available€pursuant€to€the€writ€only€after€it€has€determined€that€noneÐ l¼ Ðof€the€issues€raised€in€a€defendantððs€appeal€as€of€right€warrant€a€new€trial.€€òòId.óóÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àHere,€the€trial€court€did€not€deny€Defendantððs€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€as€a€resultÐ 0"€  Ðof€a€decision€based€on€the€merits€of€his€case,€but€summarily€dismissed€his€petition€based€on€untimelyÐ #l! Ðfiling.€€The€procedure€outlined€in€òòMixonóó€provides€that€appellate€proceedings€on€a€defendantððs€appealÐ $X" Ðas€of€right€should€be€stayed€pending€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€the€defendantððs€petition€for€writ€ofÐ ô$D # Ðerror€coram€nobis€and,€thereafter,€any€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€the€petition€is€to€beÐ à%0!$ Ðconsolidated€with€the€defendantððs€pending€appeal€as€of€right.€€òòId.óó€(citing€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€16(b)).€Ð Ì&"% ÐConsequently,€until€the€trial€court€renders€a€decision€on€Defendantððs€petition€based€on€the€merits€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðhis€claim,€under€òòMixonóó,€appellate€proceedings€should€be€stayed.€€For€reasons€which€follow,€we€findÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthat€the€procedural€time€bar€would€violate€Defendantððs€right€to€constitutional€due€process€and,Ð )à$( Ðtherefore,€the€statute€of€limitations€does€not€apply€here.€€Thus,€Defendant€is€entitled€to€a€hearing€onÐ |*Ì%) Ðhis€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€so€that€the€trial€court€may€properly€evaluate€his€claim.€Ð h+¸&* ÐFollowing€a€hearing€on€the€merits,€the€State€or€Defendant€may€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€decision,€andÐ ° Ðthis€Court€will€then€proceed€according€to€the€guidelines€in€òòMixonóó€discussed€òòsupraóó.Ð œì ÐÌà  àThe€State€points€out€that€the€precise€question€whether€the€dismissal€of€a€coram€nobis€petition,Ð tÄ Ðbased€on€failure€to€file€within€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations,€violates€a€defendantððs€due€processÐ `° Ðrights€was€previously€considered€by€this€Court€in€òòSeymour€Hayes,€III€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9902„CR„Ð L œ Ð00066,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€20,€1999)€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð 8 ˆ Ð1999).€€This€Court€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€the€time€bar.€€However,€this€opinion€was€filedÐ $ t Ðbefore€our€supreme€court€decided€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€41€S.W.3d€100€(Tenn.€2001),€a€case€whichÐ  ` Ðrequires€us€to€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€Defendantððs€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobisÐ ü L  Ðand€remand€the€issue€to€the€trial€court€for€a€hearing€on€the€merits.€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àIn€òòWorkmanóó,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€granted€application€to€appeal€a€case€in€which€theÐ À  Ðpetitioner€was€denied€a€hearing€on€his€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€because€the€statute€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðlimitations€for€filing€had€passed.€€Workman€sought€his€writ€based€on€claims€that€new€evidence,Ð ˜è  Ðunavailable€during€his€trial,€would€show€that€he€was€actually€innocent€of€capital€murder.€€TheÐ „Ô  Ðsupreme€court€found€that,€in€a€variety€of€contexts,€due€process€may€require€tolling€of€an€applicableÐ pÀ Ðstatute€of€limitations.€€òòId.óó€at€103.€€The€òòWorkmanóó€court€relied,€in€part,€on€the€due€processÐ \¬ Ðconsiderations€discussed€in€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992).€€òòId.óó€at€102.€€Specifically,Ð H˜ Ðthe€òòBurfordóó€court€recognized€that€ð ðbefore€a€state€may€terminate€a€claim€for€failure€to€comply€withÐ 4„ Ðprocedural€requirements€such€as€statutes€of€limitations,€due€process€requires€that€potential€litigantsÐ  p Ðbe€provided€an€opportunity€for€the€presentation€of€claims€at€a€meaningful€time€and€in€a€meaningfulÐ  \ Ðmannerðð€and€that,€ð ðunder€the€circumstances€of€a€particular€case,€application€of€the€statute€may€notÐ øH Ðafford€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€have€the€claimed€issue€heard€and€decided.ðð€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòBurfordóó,Ð ä4 Ð845€S.W.2d€at€208).€€In€determining€what€sort€of€opportunity€is€ð ðreasonable,ðð€the€court€concludedÐ Ð  Ðthat€ð ð[i]dentification€of€the€precise€dictates€of€due€process€requires€consideration€of€both€theÐ ¼  Ðgovernmental€interests€involved€and€the€private€interests€affected€by€the€official€action€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€Ð ¨ø ÐThe€private€interest€at€stake€in€òòBurfordóó€was€the€accusedððs€opportunity€to€attack€his€conviction€andÐ ”ä Ðincarceration€on€the€grounds€that€he€was€deprived€of€a€constitutional€right;€the€governmental€interestÐ €Ð Ðrepresented€by€the€statute€of€limitations€was€the€prevention€of€stale€and€groundless€claims.€€òòId.óó€€AfterÐ l¼ Ðweighing€the€competing€interests,€the€court€in€òòBurfordóó€determined€that€the€accusedððs€interest€inÐ X ¨ Ðmounting€a€constitutional€attack€upon€his€conviction€and€incarceration€outweighed€the€StateððsÐ D!” Ðinterest€in€preventing€the€litigation€of€stale€and€groundless€claims.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àAfter€the€court€in€òòWorkmanóó€weighed€the€governmental€interests€involved€against€the€privateÐ $X" Ðinterests€affected€by€the€official€action,€it€decided€that,€if€the€procedural€time€bar€was€applied,Ð ô$D # ÐWorkman€could€have€been€put€to€death€without€receiving€an€opportunity€to€have€the€merits€of€hisÐ à%0!$ Ðclaim€evaluated€by€a€court€of€this€state.€€òòId.óó€at€103.€€In€other€words,€due€process€precludes€applicationÐ Ì&"% Ðof€the€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€consideration€of€a€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€in€casesÐ ¸'#& Ðwhere€the€defendantððs€interest€in€obtaining€a€hearing€to€present€newly€discovered€evidence,€whichÐ ¤(ô#' Ðmay€establish€actual€innocence,€far€outweighs€any€governmental€interest€in€preventing€the€litigationÐ )à$( Ðof€stale€claims.€€òòId.óó€€The€supreme€court€concluded€that€Workman€was€entitled€to€a€hearing€to€evaluateÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€claims€contained€in€his€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€heÐ h+¸&* Ðfiled€his€petition€òòthirteen€monthsóó€after€discovering€the€newly€discovered€evidence.€€òòId.óó€€InÐ ° Ðconsidering€the€delay,€the€court€remarked€that€the€time€within€which€Workmanððs€petition€was€filedÐ œì Ðdid€not€exceed€the€reasonable€opportunity€afforded€by€due€process,€especially€in€cases€such€asÐ ˆØ ÐWorkmanððs€where€the€evidence€in€issue€may€show€actual€innocence€of€a€capital€offense.€€òòId.óó€at€103„Ð tÄ Ð104.Ð `° ÐÌà  àContrary€to€òòWorkmanóó,€Defendantððs€case€does€not€involve€a€capital€offense.€€Yet€a€sentenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðof€twenty„four€years,€without€eligibility€for€release,€is€a€sufficiently€significant€period€of€time€toÐ $ t Ðwarrant€similar€treatment€for€purposes€of€due€process€analysis.€€Relevant€to€Defendantððs€sentence,Ð  ` Ðwe€note€the€judgment€form€indicates€that€Defendant€was€sentenced€as€a€ð ðStandard€30%€Range€IððÐ ü L  Ðoffender.€€However,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„501(i)(1)€provides€that€ð ð[t]here€shallÐ è 8  Ðbe€no€release€eligibility€for€a€person€committing€an€offense,€on€or€after€July€1,€1995,€that€isÐ Ô$  Ðenumerated€in€subsection€(2),ðð€which€includes€rape€of€a€child,€and€that€ð ð[s]uch€person€shall€serveÐ À  Ðone€hundred€percent€(100%)€of€the€sentence€imposed€by€the€court€less€sentence€credits€earned€andÐ ¬ü  Ðretained.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(i)(1),€(2)€(1997).€€In€the€event€the€trial€court€deniesÐ ˜è  ÐDefendantððs€coram€nobis€petition,€the€judgment€should€be€amended€to€reflect€the€proper€releaseÐ „Ô  Ðeligibility€status€regarding€his€sentence.€€€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àReturning€to€the€due€process€issue,€we€observe€that€Defendant,€similarly€to€the€defendant€inÐ H˜ ÐòòWorkmanóó,€has€raised€serious€questions€regarding€whether€he,€in€fact,€sexually€abused€his€daughter.€Ð 4„ ÐThe€great€weight€of€evidence€against€him€came€from€the€testimony€of€the€victim,€who€has€allegedlyÐ  p Ðsince€recanted.€€The€record€reveals€that€toward€the€end€of€November€1999,€the€victim€and€her€motherÐ  \ Ðcontacted€the€attorney€generalððs€office€to€discuss€the€fact€that€the€victim€gave€false€testimony€atÐ øH ÐDefendantððs€trial.€€The€one„year€statute€of€limitations€on€the€filing€of€Defendantððs€petition€for€writÐ ä4 Ðof€error€coram€nobis€expired€on€December€7,€1999,€and€he€filed€his€petition€fourteen€days€later,€onÐ Ð  ÐDecember€21,€1999.€€The€small€delay€in€filing€may€or€may€be€not€attributable€to€the€fault€ofÐ ¼  ÐDefendant€and/or€his€attorneys.€€This€issue,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€should€be€decided€by€the€trial€court€during€aÐ ¨ø Ðhearing€to€fully€evaluate€the€strength€of€Defendantððs€claim€in€accordance€with€the€legal€rules€set€outÐ ”ä Ðfor€error€coram€nobis€proceedings€and€recanted€testimony.€€òòSeeóó€òòMixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€672„73€n.17Ð €Ð Ð(the€supreme€court€affirmed€the€holding€of€this€Court€enunciating€the€correct€standard€to€be€appliedÐ l¼ Ðby€trial€courts€in€determining€whether€a€new€trial€should€be€granted€upon€the€basis€of€newlyÐ X ¨ Ðdiscovered€recanted€testimony).€€€Ð D!” ÐÌà  àIn€fairness€to€the€trial€court,€we€are€mindful€that,€under€prior€law,€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€errorÐ #l! Ðcoram€nobis€which€was€not€filed€within€one€year€of€the€date€on€which€the€judgment€of€convictionÐ $X" Ðbecame€final€was€summarily€dismissed€as€untimely.€€òòId.óó€at€670;€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903€S.W.2d€297,€299Ð ô$D # Ð(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòNewsome€v.€Stateóó,€995€S.W.2d€129,€133€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€However,Ð à%0!$ Ðin€accordance€with€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòWorkmanóó,€we€find€that€Defendantððs€interest€inÐ Ì&"% Ðobtaining€a€hearing€on€his€claim€outweighs€the€governmental€interest€embodied€in€the€statute€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðlimitations.€€Based€on€this€finding,€and€because€an€evaluation€of€his€claim€may€also€reveal€newlyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdiscovered€evidence€which€shows€actual€innocence€of€the€offense,€we€conclude€that€due€processÐ )à$( Ðprecludes€summary€dismissal€of€this€claim€based€upon€a€statutory€time€bar.€€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àA€new€trial€should€be€granted€upon€the€basis€of€newly€discovered€recanted€testimony€onlyÐ ° Ðif€(1)€the€trial€court€is€reasonably€well€satisfied€that€the€testimony€given€by€the€material€witness€wasÐ œì Ðfalse€and€the€new€testimony€is€true;€(2)€the€defendant€was€reasonably€diligent€in€discovering€the€newÐ ˆØ Ðevidence,€or€was€surprised€by€the€false€testimony,€or€was€unable€to€know€of€the€falsity€of€theÐ tÄ Ðtestimony€until€after€the€trial;€and€(3)€the€jury€might€have€reached€a€different€conclusion€had€the€truthÐ `° Ðbeen€told.€€òòMixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€at€673€n.17.€€At€the€upcoming€hearing€on€his€petition€for€writ€of€errorÐ L œ Ðcoram€nobis,€Defendant€will€have€the€opportunity€to€establish€the€above€criteria.€€If€he€makes€thisÐ 8 ˆ Ðshowing,€and€convinces€the€trial€court€that€the€witnesses€who€testify€in€support€of€his€claim€areÐ $ t Ðcredible,€he€will€be€entitled€to€a€new€trial.€€Ð  ` ÐÌò òà@††"ìàIII.€€CONCLUSIONó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àFor€the€forgoing€reasons,€we€find€that€due€process€requires€tolling€of€the€applicable€statuteÐ À  Ðof€limitations€under€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€41€S.W.3d€100€(Tenn.€2001).€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€theÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€courtððs€summary€dismissal€of€Defendantððs€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€on€the€grounds€that€it€wasÐ ˜è  Ðuntimely€filed,€and€remand€this€issue€to€the€trial€court€for€a€hearing€on€the€merits€of€that€petition.€Ð „Ô  ÐPursuant€to€òòState€v.€Mixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661€(Tenn.€1999),€appellate€proceedings€on€DefendantððsÐ pÀ Ðappeal€as€of€right€from€his€conviction€are€stayed€pending€the€trial€courtððs€decision€on€the€coram€nobisÐ \¬ Ðpetition.€€As€a€result€of€the€stay,€Defendantððs€appeal€as€of€right€is€removed€from€this€Courtððs€docket.€Ð H˜ ÐThe€case€will€be€redocketed,€if€necessary,€following€the€trial€courtððs€disposition€of€the€petition€forÐ 4„ Ðwrit€of€error€coram€nobis,€pursuant€to€the€procedures€detailed€in€òòMixonóó.Ð  p ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE