ÿWPCÖ ÆJ’ûG€¶ºÜu´Ã‹(¶\…3ádÕ¨G‘dÏ€:V(ÄáÙ 1Hçám£ûÐëÀ¤¯3ˆfëg{ÛëH.š¬p[éëÑoô3À>mÄñ=¸c[U lÇlòÄ3ç¿&éÞûXñP )†lÙ&‘r5ÍsûšÆvþå4åð>¤«nÂé“ÏpíìÆ¥#.ᳬ‰€í¨âEغî9 cÏñ“É[Z~E«)§ÁL°­Î,zÇœ›U„ê|ißMÖÑñß*.ª¦LR#8…;.œ›rË04½ïP`˾MáR­–¸6'¬Óûøø=UBÔ¬øûUìô¶UæK›Á(yÒÒ ×ÿ¼-¶Úÿ‘™UŽúÿy)Îã®â)öi#(Äiþºþ‰¯šÛ1ì#›é…åÕ;óAÍÀ›gýPi‚A©èÍÍVZDGB!J¹:œBdÌÅÇâ×®ÈzÈœýOâÒ‡¢‡¯ú©÷‘Pöh+•Q¬}€IXìqv oˆ+˜I¦§9SdººÂ•^®ªdmh‹+HãùØ‹¦Þt}]·Š:ÓW))àâ$ˆ²1s¨×“-JÑUÄ'qe)nÔo³RéVí}2G¥Ä[h^gÎÉÁƒ-%0LÖë­@b %\^ b 0ˆnU NöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ ‘ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë ±NÇÇÇEÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉÉbËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËË 0ëÓÓÓÓ B¾¾ 0¤Û D3 D-² 0Kßß AS*Æ} 0¤C 0Dç A«+»¬-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularüPH,:\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 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ñ ° Ñ- ù-(|G28g$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô±Õò»»Ô d(|3c$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3c$¢¢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  ÑÑ8€U‘XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€OYÑà@ttìàÔ‡îüî»»ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†»-»îîüò#ԈРÖ& Ðà@ëë ìàJuly€16,€2002€SessionˆÐ üL ÐÌò òà@  ìàGREGORY€THOMPSON€v.€Ô_ÔRICKYÔ_Ô€BELL,€WARDENó óˆÐ  p ÐÌÔ€XU‘X»»-Ôà@ ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Coffee€CountyˆÐ F – Ðà@~ ~ ìàNo.€31,213€€€€€€L.€Craig€Johnson,€JudgeˆÐ 2 ‚ ÐÌà@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E< ` A߈Ð  Z  ÐÌà@° ° ìàNo.€M2001„02460„CCA„Ô_ÔOTÔ_Ô„CO€„€Filed€August€15,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ԈРU  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ü` AßÐ Ý-  Ðó óÌAppellant,€Gregory€Thompson,€was€convicted€for€the€first€degree€murder€of€Brenda€Lane.€€TheÐ Ø(  Ðmurder€occurred€on€January€1,€1985.€€The€jury€imposed€the€death€penalty.€€Our€supreme€courtÐ Ä Ðaffirmed€the€conviction€and€sentence€of€death.€€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,€768€S.W.2d€239€(Tenn.€1989).€Ð ° ÐAppellant€subsequently€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€petition€was€denied€by€theÐ œì Ðtrial€court,€and€the€trial€courtððs€denial€was€subsequently€affirmed€by€our€Court.€€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,Ð ˆØ Ð958€S.W.2d€156€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1997).€€Later,€in€2001,€Appellant€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€errorÐ tÄ Ðcoram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô,€which€the€trial€court€dismissed€without€an€evidentiary€hearing€because€it€was€filed€afterÐ `° Ðexpiration€of€the€applicable€one„year€statute€of€limitations.€€This€appeal€followed.€€We€affirm€theÐ Lœ Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð 8ˆ ÐÌò òà@——ìàTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed.ó óˆÐ ` ÐÌòòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJ.€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô€óóand€òòAlanÐ è8 ÐE.€Glenn,óó€JJ.,€joined.Ð Ô$ ÐÌMarjorie€A.€Bristol,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Gregory€Thompson.Ð ¬ü ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Jennifer€L.€Smith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð „!Ô  ÐC.€Michael€Ô_ÔLayneÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Chris€Vernon,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð p"À! Ðfor€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð \#¬" ÐÌò òà@66'ìàOPINIONó óˆÐ 4%„ $ ÐÌà  àIn€his€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€Ô_ÔnobisÔ_Ô,€Appellant€asserts€that€ð ðnew€evidenceðð€of€hisÐ  '\"& Ðmental€incapacity€exists€which€would€have€resulted€in€a€different€judgment€if€the€jury€had€beenÐ ø'H#' Ðaware€of€the€evidence€at€the€time€of€his€trial.€€Defendant€bases€this€theory€on€a€petition€filed€in€theÐ ä(4$( ÐChancery€Court€of€Davidson€County,€with€the€State€of€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction€asÐ Ð) %) Ðpetitioner,€seeking€to€have€a€conservator€appointed€for€Appellant.€€The€Department€of€CorrectionÐ ¼* &* Ðasserted€that€the€appointment€of€a€conservator€was€for€the€limited€purpose€of€providing€consent€forÐ ¨+ø&+ ÐAppellant€to€ð ðreceive€medical€and€psychiatric€treatment,€including€the€forcible€administration€ofÐ ”,ä', Ðmedications€if€the€conservator€finds€that€such€is€necessary.ðð€Ð €-Ð(-ýG ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àThe€conservatorship€petition,€filed€by€the€State€Attorney€General€representing€the€DepartmentÐ ° Ðof€Correction,€alleged€in€pertinent€part€that€Appellant€was€in€need€of€protection€and€assistance€byÐ œì Ðreason€of€an€illness€which€rendered€him€ð ðpresently€disabled.ðð€€The€conservatorship€petition€furtherÐ ˆØ Ðalleged€that€Dr.€Casey€Arney,€Appellantððs€treating€psychiatrist,€had€diagnosed€Appellant€as€sufferingÐ tÄ Ðfrom€ð ða€long€history€of€Bipolar€Disorder€and€psychotic€symptoms.ðð€€No€further€quantification€of€theÐ `° Ðtime€period€of€Appellantððs€mental€disability€was€made€in€the€conservatorship€petition.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€conservatorship€petition€was€filed€March€14,€2001,€almost€sixteen€years€after€AppellantÐ $ t Ðwas€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentenced€to€death.€€Dr.€Arneyððs€letter€in€support€of€theÐ  ` Ðappointment€of€a€conservator,€which€was€sworn€to€in€the€presence€of€a€notary€public,€is€datedÐ ü L  ÐJanuary€19,€2001.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àDuring€Appellantððs€trial€and€post„conviction€proceedings,€the€State€contested€all€assertionsÐ À  Ðby€Appellant€that€his€mental€condition€was€a€valid€defense€to€the€crime€for€which€he€was€charged,Ð ¬ü  Ðand/or€that€his€mental€condition€was€a€mitigating€factor€as€to€the€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,Ð ˜è  Ð768€S.W.2d€239,€248„49€(Tenn.€1989);€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156,€164„65€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð „Ô  ÐApp.€1997).€€In€the€opinion€of€this€Court€in€the€post„conviction€case,€our€Court€noted€that€AppellantÐ pÀ Ðwas€diagnosed€òòóówith€ð ðbipolar€disorder,€schizo€affective€disorder€or€schizophreniaðð€òòsince€hisÐ \¬ Ðincarcerationóó€for€the€murder€of€Brenda€Lane.€€òòThompsonóó,€958€S.W.2d€at€164.€€Although€Appellant,Ð H˜ Ðin€his€petition€and€in€his€brief€on€appeal,€renews€allegations€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€atÐ 4„ Ðtrial,€the€crux€of€his€argument€in€the€present€coram€nobis€petition€is€based€on€a€claim€that€the€StateÐ  p Ðhas€since€reversed€its€position€and€now€agrees€that€Appellant€has€a€debilitating€mental€illness.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€purported€ð ðnew€evidenceðð€in€this€case,€which€consists€of€Dr.€Arneyððs€sworn€letterÐ ä4 Ðsupporting€the€appointment€of€a€conservator,€does€not€support€Appellantððs€assertion€that€he€wasÐ Ð  Ðsuffering€from€any€mental€disability€at€the€time€of€the€criminal€offense€for€which€he€was€convictedÐ ¼  Ðor€at€the€time€of€his€trial.€€Likewise,€the€Department€of€Correctionððs€petition€for€appointment€of€aÐ ¨ø Ðconservator€does€not,€in€and€of€itself,€constitute€ð ðevidence,ðð€new€or€old.€€òòHillhaven€Corp.€v.€StateÐ ”ä Ðex€rel.€Manor€Care,€Inc.óó,€565€S.W.2d€210,€212€(Tenn.1978)€(allegations€in€pleadings€do€notÐ €Ð Ðconstitute€evidence€of€the€facts€averred);€òòState€v.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€150,€255€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð l¼ Ð1990).€€Neither€does€the€conservatorship€petition€constitute€a€concession€by€the€State€AttorneyÐ X ¨ ÐGeneral€that€Appellant€was€mentally€disabled€at€the€time€of€the€criminal€offense€or€at€the€time€ofÐ D!” ÐAppellantððs€trial.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àThe€relief€by€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€is€provided€for€in€Tennessee€CodeÐ $X" ÐAnnotated€section€40„26„105.€€As€previously€noted€by€our€Court,€ð ð[t]he€purpose€of€this€remedy€ððisÐ ô$D # Ðto€bring€to€the€attention€of€the€[trial]€court€some€fact€unknown€to€the€court,€which€if€known€wouldÐ à%0!$ Ðhave€resulted€in€a€different€judgment.ðððð€òòState€v.€Hartóó,€911€S.W.2d€371,€374€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)Ð Ì&"% Ð(quoting€òòState€ex€rel.€Carlson€v.€Stateóó,€407€S.W.2d€165,€167€(Tenn.€1996)).€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€27„7„103€provides€a€statute€of€limitations€of€one€yearÐ )à$( Ðafter€the€judgment€becomes€final€for€filing€a€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.€€In€òòState€v.Ð |*Ì%) ÐMixonóó,€983€S.W.2d€661€(Tenn.€1999),€our€supreme€court€clarified€that€the€petition€must€be€filedÐ h+¸&* Ðwithin€one€year€of€the€date€that€the€judgment€became€final€in€the€òòtrialóó€court.€€òòId.óó€at€670.€€A€judgmentÐ ° Ðis€final€in€the€trial€court€thirty€days€after€entry€of€the€judgment€if€no€post„trial€motions€are€filed,€and,Ð œì Ðif€a€post„trial€motion€is€filed,€the€judgment€is€final€upon€entry€of€an€order€disposing€of€the€post„trialÐ ˆØ Ðmotion.€€òòId.óó€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€question€that€Appellantððs€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€was€filed€outsideÐ L œ Ðof€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€It€was€filed€more€than€fifteen€years€after€the€judgmentÐ 8 ˆ Ðbecame€final€in€the€trial€court.€€However,€in€òòWorkman€v.€Stateóó,€41€S.W.3d€100€(Tenn.€2001),€ourÐ $ t Ðsupreme€court€held€that€the€constitutional€rights€of€due€process€may€require€tolling€of€the€statute€ofÐ  ` Ðlimitations€in€a€proceeding€where€a€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€has€been€filed.€€òòId.óó€at€103.€Ð ü L  ÐòòWorkmanóó€involved€a€capital€case€wherein€the€petitioner€argued€that€certain€late„discovered€evidence,Ð è 8  Ði.e.,€a€previously€unavailable€x„ray€and€the€recanted€testimony€of€a€crucial€witness,€would€show€thatÐ Ô$  Ðhe€was€actually€innocent€of€the€crime€for€which€he€was€convicted.€€In€òòState€v.€Ratliffóó,€71€S.W.3d€291Ð À  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€2001),€our€Court€applied€the€holding€in€òòWorkmanóó€to€a€conviction€in€a€non„capitalÐ ¬ü  Ðcase.€€The€defendant€in€òòRatliffóó€was€convicted€of€rape€of€a€child€and€sentenced€to€serve€twenty„fourÐ ˜è  Ðyears€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€judgment€became€final€on€December€7,€1998.€€He€filedÐ „Ô  Ða€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€on€December€21,€1999,€fourteen€days€outside€of€theÐ pÀ Ðapplicable€statute€of€limitations.€€The€ð ðnew€evidenceðð€was€alleged€to€be€a€total€recantation€of€theÐ \¬ Ðtestimony€by€the€victim.€€Our€court€noted€that€the€great€weight€of€evidence€against€the€defendantÐ H˜ Ðcame€from€the€testimony€of€the€victim€at€trial.€€In€November€1999,€within€the€statute€of€limitations,Ð 4„ Ðthe€victim€and€her€mother€had€contacted€the€prosecutorððs€office€to€discuss€the€fact€that€the€victim€hadÐ  p Ðgiven€false€testimony€at€defendantððs€trial.€€Our€Court€held€that,€under€the€circumstances€presentedÐ  \ Ðin€òòRatliffóó,€due€process€precluded€a€summary€dismissal€of€the€petition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobisÐ øH Ðbased€upon€the€expiration€of€the€€statute€of€limitations.€€òòId.óó€at€298.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€is€distinguishable€from€both€òòWorkmanóó€and€òòRatliffóó.€€First€of€all,€theÐ ¼  Ðð ðnewly€discovered€evidenceðð€asserted€by€Appellant€in€this€case€does€not€purport€to€show€his€ð ðactualÐ ¨ø Ðinnocenceðð€of€the€crime€for€which€he€was€convicted.€€Nor€does€it€constitute€mitigating€evidenceÐ ”ä Ðregarding€his€sentence.€€As€noted€above,€assertions€by€a€party€in€a€pleading€are€not€ð ðevidence.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐFurthermore,€Dr.€Arneyððs€letter,€written€more€than€fifteen€years€after€the€commission€of€the€criminalÐ l¼ Ðoffense,€does€not€even€assert€that€Appellant€had€any€mental€illness€at€the€time€of€the€commission€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€offense.€€Finally,€as€reflected€in€this€courtððs€opinion€in€Appellantððs€post„conviction€proceeding,Ð D!” Ðthere€was€evidence,€at€least€as€early€at€1995,€that€Appellantððs€mental€illness€developed€subsequentÐ 0"€  Ðto€his€incarceration.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àThe€crux€of€Appellantððs€petition€is€that€he€should€be€granted€a€hearing€because€the€State€ofÐ ô$D # ÐTennessee,€throughout€the€trial€proceedings€and€direct€appeals€thereof,€and€throughout€the€post„Ð à%0!$ Ðconviction€proceedings,€successfully€argued€that€Appellant€did€not€have€a€mental€illness€whichÐ Ì&"% Ðwould€constitute€a€defense€to€the€crime€or€a€mitigating€factor€for€sentencing.€€Appellant€argues€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€State€now€concedes€that€Appellant€has€a€mental€illness.€€The€only€conclusion€that€can€be€logicallyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdrawn€from€the€conservatorship€petition,€however,€is€that€the€State€Attorney€General,€representingÐ )à$( Ðthe€Department€of€Correction,€asserts€that€Appellant€was€in€need€of€a€conservator€for€the€limitedÐ |*Ì%) Ðpurpose€of€giving€consent€to€medical€and€psychiatric€treatment€in€March€2001.€€This€does€notÐ h+¸&* Ðconstitute€ð ðnewly€discovered€evidenceðð€within€the€parameters€for€relief€provided€by€the€writ€of€errorÐ ° Ðcoram€nobis;€neither€does€due€process€require€a€tolling€of€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations.€€TheÐ œì Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€therefore€affirmed.Ð ˆØ ÐÌò òà@FF%ìàCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€AFFIRM€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE