ÿWPC eQ5ÓÆ7$3s$L3&<£ßë÷æÂ jcâS‹ÛøYx2u‹¸ËŒŠ9°ôÙõµ‚.Z¾ÿl¹«MÿÐ úC3›I#çp³+–KŽçÂÐoþ¨Y%ÏfvH1¼° ‰àa¼ ó|_îoQåÄWÂYÅ&ãÛUã骯r+æ¹Ê‚]ófLAÕÇJÕá ¶‡©T“!¤’°ò-+U÷ƒ†›¼ƒÕ:ª Úa:µý­Ô+÷ ÿçq¨=/µ;Wr¿)à—gNâ’Œ/c½4fhâÑùs©7¤v§4R˜þŠØDb}«[”Ž]Ãð¢P-õë/¥æ±àzS´,‘¶é»è¦Eê8YøâcÜŽ…üD9¶½ãòM\3<lð[Æ£—([tv  »Æ ¾–ß«Ó"Ý¿uú‰'ô¬F@äsçm£n y¤t†d⛿­ðTÃV¾}O§áƼÝp—Ézg„ߺS¾Oº’'NÓÏÃæ eØÀ õ~òè4ñ‚~iÌ À½WÈöæo-‘ªËÊ}ƒØ îîDLgä®à ø r‡eNW°Deuò=pÑË+ËMƒ,kqP'½¸$IÑugJø-Zö Üüz0öuÎL¥hŽñ“©gy|¡òb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÉÐ Ð Æ™ Æ_ Æ%ÆëëN±±±E³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³ 0Dµµµµµbùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùù 0ë Bìì 0¤  D3­ D-à 0K   ASXÆ« 0¤q 0D A«Y»ü’P/Ï (`£ª$¡¡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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S08T\knoxclerk3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2ÿš$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôðõò»»Ô d(|3?r$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€^»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3?r$¢¢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  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼^»»»ÔÑ8€‘XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îJŒî»¼^ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼^»îîJŒ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€September€23,€2003Ð üL ÐÔ‡X‘X»¼^ÔÌò òÔ#†¼^»XX‘##ÔROGER€L.€SMITH€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X‘X»¼^Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Greene€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€02CR191€€€€€€James€E.€Ô_ÔBecknerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„00094„CCA„R3„PCÐ ¥õ  ÐOctober€16,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant,€Roger€L.€Smith,€pled€guilty€to€three€counts€of€child€rape€in€1998.€€He€subsequentlyÐ xÈ  Ðfiled€for€post„conviction€relief€and€for€DNA€testing.€€The€trial€court€summarily€dismissed€the€post„Ð d´ Ðconviction€petition€on€the€grounds€that€it€is€time„barred.€€The€trial€court€further€summarily€deniedÐ P  Ðthe€Defendantððs€request€for€DNA€testing.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals.€€We€affirm€the€judgment€ofÐ <Œ Ðthe€trial€court€dismissing€the€Defendantððs€claim€for€post„conviction€relief,€but€reverse€and€remandÐ (x Ðfor€further€proceedings€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€Defendantððs€request€for€DNA€testing.Ð d ÐÓßÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€in€Part;€Ð ì< ÐReversed€in€Part;€Remandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼^»àX‘#ÔÔ‡X‘X.¼^ÔDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,óó€andÐ ° ÐòòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌRoger€L.€Smith,€Mountain€City,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð tÄ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Braden€H.€Ô_ÔBoucekÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð L œ ÐC.€Berkeley€Bell,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Eric€D.€Christiansen,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ 8!ˆ  ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð $"t! ÐÓwÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼^»XX‘¦#ÔÔ‡X‘X»¼^ÔÐ ü#L# ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼^»XX‘Ä #ÔÔ‡X‘X»¼^ÔÓ  Óà  àThe€Defendant,€Roger€L.€Smith,€pled€guilty€in€1998€to€three€counts€of€child€rape.€€HeÐ Ô%$!% Ðreceived€an€Ô#†¼^»XX‘" #ÔÔ€X‘X»¼^Ôeffective€sentence€of€fifteen€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€In€October€2002,Ð À&"& Ðthe€Defendant€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€alleging€that€his€guilty€plea€was€notÐ ¬'ü"' Ðvoluntary€and€knowing,€and€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€conjunction€withÐ ˜(è#( Ðhis€plea.€€The€Defendant€further€alleged€that€he€ð ðwas€mentally€incompetent€and€handicapped€duringÐ „)Ô$) Ðthe€time€period€for€filing€a€post„conviction€petition.ðð€€Finally,€the€Defendant€included€within€hisÐ p*À%* Ðpetition€a€request€that€DNA€testing€be€performed€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„Ð \+¬&+ Ð30„401€et€seq.Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôà  àThe€trial€court€summarily€dismissed€the€Defendantððs€claims€for€relief.€€The€court€stated€thatÐ ° Ðthe€Defendant€had€presented€ð ðno€evidence€of€his€decreased€mental€capacity€except€for€his€bareÐ œì Ðallegation€of€itðð€and€that€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€therefore€time„barred.€€WithÐ ˆØ Ðrespect€to€the€Defendantððs€request€for€DNA€testing,€the€trial€court€stated€only€that€ð ð[a]€post„Ð tÄ Ðconviction€petition€cannot€be€employed€to€investigate€in€order€to€try€to€obtain€evidence€that€mightÐ `° Ðor€might€not€exist.ðð€€The€Defendant€now€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€summarily€dismissingÐ L œ Ðhis€claims€for€relief.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWe€will€first€address€the€Defendantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Claims€for€post„Ð  ` Ðconviction€relief€must€be€filed€ð ðwithin€one€(1)€year€of€the€date€of€the€final€action€of€the€highest€stateÐ ü L  Ðappellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€is€taken€or,€if€no€appeal€is€taken,€within€one€(1)€year€of€the€dateÐ è 8  Ðon€which€the€judgment€became€final,€or€consideration€of€such€petition€shall€be€barred.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ô$  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„30„202(a).€€The€Defendant€contends€that€the€statute€of€limitations€should€be€tolled€becauseÐ À  Ðof€his€alleged€ð ðmental€retardation€and€incompetence.ðð€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€òòSeals€v.€Stateóó,€23€S.W.3d€272,€279€(Tenn.€2000),€our€supreme€court€acknowledged€thatÐ „Ô  Ðdue€process€considerations€require€that€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€be€tolled€duringÐ pÀ Ðperiods€of€mental€incompetency.€€However,€the€level€of€mental€incompetency€required€for€tollingÐ \¬ Ðpurposes€is€that€the€petitioner€be€ð ðunable€either€to€manage€his€personal€affairs€or€to€understand€hisÐ H˜ Ðlegal€rights€and€liabilities.ðð€€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€40€S.W.3d€459,€463€(Tenn.€2001).€€Moreover,Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àto€make€a€prima€facie€showing€of€incompetence€requiring€tolling€of€the€limitationsÐ  \ Ðperiod,€a€post„conviction€petition€must€include€specific€factual€allegations€thatÐ øH Ðdemonstrate€the€petitionerððs€inability€to€manage€his€personal€affairs€or€understand€hisÐ ä4 Ðlegal€rights€and€liabilities.€€Unsupported,€conclusory,€or€general€allegations€of€mentalÐ Ð  Ðillness€will€not€be€sufficient€to€require€tolling€and€prevent€summary€dismissal[.]€€TheÐ ¼  Ðrequired€prima€facie€showing€may€be€satisfied€by€attaching€to€the€petition€affidavits,Ð ¨ø Ðdepositions,€medical€reports,€or€other€credible€evidence€that€contain€specific€factualÐ ”ä Ðallegations€showing€the€petitionerððs€incompetence.€€While€affidavits€and€depositionsÐ €Ð Ðof€mental€health€professionals€may€be€utilized,€they€are€not€essential,€and€a€€petitionerÐ l¼ Ðmay€rely€upon€affidavits€and€depositions€from€family€members,€prison€officials,Ð X ¨ Ðattorneys,€or€any€other€person€who€has€knowledge€of€facts€that€demonstrate€either€theÐ D!” Ðpetitionerððs€inability€to€manage€his€personal€affairs€or€the€petitionerððs€inability€toÐ 0"€  Ðunderstand€his€legal€rights€and€liabilities.€€.€.€.€Unless€this€burden€is€satisfied,€theÐ #l! Ðpetition€should€be€dismissed€as€time„barred.Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€at€464„65€(citations€omitted).Ð à%0!$ ÐÓÓà  àIn€support€of€his€claim€of€mental€incompetence,€the€Defendant€alleged€in€his€petition€that€heÐ ¸'#& Ðis€ð ð100%€illiterate,ðð€suffers€from€ð ðsevere€mental€retardation,ðð€and€was€ð ðincompetent€to€stand€trialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€a€sane€adult.ðð€€No€supporting€documentation€of€these€allegations€was€offered.€€Under€the€òòNixóóÐ )à$( Ðâ âdecision,€the€Defendant€failed€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€for€the€tolling€of€the€statute€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðlimitations€on€grounds€of€mental€incompetence,€and€the€trial€court€was€therefore€correct€inÐ ° Ðdismissing€the€petition€as€time„barred.€€This€issue€has€no€merit.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€Defendant€also€petitioned€for€DNA€testing€pursuant€to€the€Post„Conviction€DNAÐ tÄ ÐAnalysis€Act€of€2001.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„401€et€seq.€(Supp.€2002).€€Pursuant€to€this€Act,Ð `° Ða€person€convicted€of€rape€of€a€child€Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àmay€òòat€any€timeóó,€file€a€petition€requesting€the€forensic€DNA€analysis€of€any€evidenceÐ $ t Ðthat€is€in€the€possession€or€control€of€the€prosecution,€law€enforcement,€laboratory,Ð  ` Ðor€court,€and€that€is€related€to€the€investigation€or€prosecution€that€resulted€in€theÐ ü L  Ðjudgment€of€conviction€and€that€may€contain€biological€evidence.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€ðð€40„30„403€(Supp.€2002)€(emphasis€added).€€An€order€of€DNA€analysis€is€thereupon€requiredÐ À  Ðif€the€trial€court€finds€that€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  à(1)€A€reasonable€probability€exists€that€the€petitioner€would€not€have€been€prosecutedÐ „Ô  Ðor€convicted€if€exculpatory€results€had€been€obtained€through€DNA€analysis;€ÐpÀÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€The€evidence€is€still€in€existence€and€in€such€a€condition€that€DNA€analysis€mayÐ \¬ Ðbe€conducted;ÐH˜Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€The€evidence€was€never€previously€subjected€to€DNA€analysis€or€was€notÐ 4„ Ðsubjected€to€the€analysis€that€is€now€requested€which€could€resolve€an€issue€notÐ  p Ðresolved€by€previous€analysis;€and€Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€The€application€for€analysis€is€made€for€the€purpose€of€demonstrating€innocenceÐ øH Ðand€not€to€unreasonably€delay€the€execution€of€sentence€or€administration€of€justice.Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€40„30„404€(Supp.€2002).Ð ¼  ÐÓÓà  àIn€his€petition,€the€Defendant€asserts€that€he€is€ð ð[r]equesting€DNA€testing€of€biologicalÐ ”ä Ðevidence€in€alleged€victimððs€Rape€Exam€to€prove€Petitionerððs€innocence.ðð€€He€further€asserts€thatÐ €Ð Ðhis€ð ðinnocence€of€the€crime€of€Child€Rape€can€be€proven€by€performing€DNA€testing€on€theÐ l¼ Ðbiological€evidence€in€State€custody:€€namely:€€the€medical€examination€and€Rape€Kit€performed€onÐ X ¨ Ðthe€alleged€victims.€€This€will€prove€that€Petitioner€did€not€sexually€assault€the€alleged€victims.ðð€€TheÐ D!” ÐDefendant€alleges€that€he€ð ðis€entitled€to€DNA€testing€of€the€above€described€evidence€to€prove€hisÐ 0"€  Ðactual€innocence€of€the€crime€of€Child€Rape.ððÐ #l! ÐÌà  àIn€response€to€the€Defendantððs€pleadings,€the€State€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€The€motionÐ ô$D # Ðmakes€no€reference€whatsoever€to€the€Defendantððs€request€for€DNA€testing.€€The€trial€courtððsÐ à%0!$ Ðresponse€to€the€Defendantððs€request€is€set€forth€above,€to€wit:€€ð ð[a]€post„conviction€petition€cannotÐ Ì&"% Ðbe€employed€to€investigate€in€order€to€try€to€obtain€evidence€that€might€or€might€not€exist.ðð€€Thus,€Ð ¸'#& Ðthe€trial€court€made€no€findings€of€fact€about€the€Defendantððs€request€for€DNA€analysis.€€It€made€noÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfindings€with€respect€to€whether€the€criteria€necessary€for€an€order€of€DNA€analysis€were€present.€Ð )à$( ÐThe€trial€court€did€not€even€require€the€State€to€respond€to€the€Defendantððs€request.€€In€this,€the€trialÐ |*Ì%) Ðcourt€erred.Ð h+¸&* Їà  àThis€Court€has€previously€stated€that,€in€proceedings€such€as€this,€Ð ° Ðà8  àif€the€contents€of€a€petition€establish€a€prima€facie€case€and,€after€any€response€by€theÐ œì Ðstate,€the€trial€court€determines€all€statutory€prerequisites€are€present,€a€petitionerÐ ˆØ Ðconvicted€of€one€of€the€statutorily€enumerated€crimes€is€entitled€to€DNA€analysis.€Ð tÄ ÐIf€the€state€contests€the€presence€of€any€qualifying€criteria€and€it€is€apparent€that€eachÐ `° Ðprerequisite€cannot€be€established,€the€trial€court€has€the€authority€to€dismiss€theÐ L œ Ðpetition.€€Considerable€latitude€must€be€given€to€trial€courts€in€gathering€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðnecessary€information€for€the€decision.€€Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌòòWilliam€D.€Buford€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M2002„02180„CCA„R3„PC,€2003€WL€1937110,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð ü L  ÐApp.,€Nashville,€April€24,€2003)€(citations€omitted).€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòWillie€Tom€Ensley€v.€Stateóó,€No.Ð è 8  ÐM2002„01609„CCA„R3„PC,€2003€WL€1868647,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€April€11,€2003)Ð Ô$  Ð(ð ðBecause€there€was€not€sufficient€evidence€upon€which€to€make€a€factual€finding€about€theÐ À  Ðexistence€of€the€statutory€criteria,€and€because€the€state€failed€to€file€a€response€denying€that€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpetitioner€was€entitled€to€relief,€the€trial€court,€in€our€view,€overstepped€its€discretionary€authorityÐ ˜è  Ðby€summarily€dismissing€the€petition.ðð)€€In€this€case,€the€Defendant€set€forth€as€many€facts€as€areÐ „Ô  Ðavailable€to€him€in€order€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case.€€He€asserts€that€his€innocence€would€beÐ pÀ Ðdemonstrated€through€DNA€analysis;€claims€that€a€rape€kit€was€performed€such€that€the€necessaryÐ \¬ Ðevidence€is€available€for€testing;€and€implies€that€the€testing€has€not€been€previously€performed.€Ð H˜ ÐGiven€that€the€Defendant€is€proceeding€òòproóó€òòseóó€and€from€the€confines€of€prison,€we€hold€that€theÐ 4„ ÐDefendantððs€petition€is€sufficient€to€trigger€a€response€from€the€State€and€findings€of€fact€from€theÐ  p Ðtrial€court.€€If,€upon€the€Stateððs€response€and€any€further€information€that€the€trial€court€deemsÐ  \ Ðnecessary,€the€trial€court€is€satisfied€that€summary€dismissal€is€appropriate,€then€the€trial€court€mayÐ øH Ðdo€so€upon€so€finding.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€summary€dismissal€of€the€Defendantððs€claim€for€post„conviction€relief€onÐ ¼  Ðthe€basis€that€his€guilty€plea€was€invalid€and€based€on€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€isÐ ¨ø Ðaffirmed.€€The€trial€courtððs€summary€dismissal€of€the€Defendantððs€post„conviction€request€for€DNAÐ ”ä Ðanalysis€is€reversed€and€that€matter€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€consistent€herewith.Ð €Ð ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGE