ÿWPC+ …# VUNa %¯ 0Dµbùw@ 4A U d 0ˆl 0Dô D38 0Jk 0Tµ 0^ 0hg 0rÏ 0|A 0†½ 0C 1uÓ 0dHU>¬U *êB)DC= AM€ BÍ2ê! 0@=¸}v~5vÓ³ AO†ÆÕ 0D› D/ß B˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLLÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ñþ$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°Ò- ù- ªD«¬D­®D¯°±²³Ó€Úƒç"3|x¾(8(3I¸$¤¤Ý ƒñþ!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó****'ÿÿdxd2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d (Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ30,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔ€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(1)€„€(3)€(Supp.€1996).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ®Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔ€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a),€(b)€(Supp.€1996).€€The€Petitionerððs€motion€to€reopenÏwas€assigned€case€number€S37,141.€€The€case€number€of€the€challenged€conviction€from€1985€wasÏapparently€18,745.€€It€appears€that€the€trial€judge€inadvertently€referred€to€the€motion€to€reopen€asÏcase€number€18,745€in€his€May€20,€1996,€order€of€dismissal.€€The€trial€judge€later€corrected€thisÏmistake€by€entering€an€order€of€dismissal€referring€to€the€proper€case€number.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÝ  ÝÑ ` ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€%ŠÔÔ€&ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€¦YXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Óò òÙ€€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` à. `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌAT€œKNOXVILLE›ÌÌœJULY›€SESSION,€œ1997›ÌÌÌÓ  ÓœJIMMY€WAYNE€WILSON,›à à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€œ03C01„9611„CR„00409›Ìà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àœAppellant,›à àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àœSULLIVAN›€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€œARDEN€L.€HILLó ó›Ìœò òSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó ó›à àò ò)à àJUDGEó óÌà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àœAppellee.›à àà àà àò ò)à àœó ó(Post„Conviction)ò ò›Ìó óÌÌò òÓ  ÓON€APPEAL€FROM€THE€JUDGMENT€OF€THEÌœCRIMINAL›€COURT€OF€œSULLIVAN€COUNTY›ó óÌÌÌòòÓ  ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌœJIMMY€WAYNE€WILSON›à àà àœJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌPro€Seà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ#108253€MCRCF€POB€2000ÌWartburg,€TN€37887à àà àà àMICHAEL€J.€FAHEY,€IIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à425€5th€Avenue€NorthÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àGREELEY€WELLSÌà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àSullivan€County€Justice€CenterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€37617›ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED€________________________ÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÇò òòòÓ  ÓÔ€&°ÔOPINIONóóó óÔ€&ŠÔÌÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àThe€Petitioner,€Jimmy€Wayne€Wilson,€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððs€denialÏof€his€motion€to€reopen€a€prior€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€On€July€22,Ï1985,€he€was€convicted€by€a€Sullivan€County€jury€of€rape€and€found€to€be€anÏhabitual€offender.€€He€subsequently€filed€two€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief,Ïthe€first€in€1987€and€the€second€in€1990,€both€of€which€were€denied.€€TheÏPetitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóó€motion€to€reopen€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏon€May€8,€1996.€€In€his€motion,€he€alleged€that€our€supreme€courtððs€holding€inÏòòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994),€established€a€constitutionalÏright€not€recognized€at€the€time€of€his€trial€but€requiring€retrospective€application€toÏhis€case,€that€DNA€testing€would€prove€that€he€was€actually€innocent€of€theÏrape,€and€that€his€habitual€offender€sentence€was€based€in€part€on€a€convictionÏwhich€had€been€invalidated.× ƒ, ××  ×€On€May€21,€1996,€the€trial€court€dismissed€theÏmotion€to€reopen€without€appointing€counsel€or€conducting€an€evidentiaryÏhearing,€finding€that€it€did€not€present€a€colorable€claim€for€relief.× ƒ. ××  ×€€The€PetitionerÍfiled€a€notice€of€appeal€with€the€trial€court€clerk€on€May€30,€1996.€€We€concludeÏthat,€because€the€Petitioner€did€not€follow€the€appropriate€statutory€procedure€forÏperfecting€his€appeal€to€this€Court,€his€appeal€must€be€dismissed.ÌÌà àWe€begin€by€recounting€the€history€of€the€present€case.€€As€we€statedÏabove,€the€Petitioner€was€convicted€by€a€Sullivan€County€jury€of€rape€andÏfound€to€be€an€habitual€offender€on€July€22,€1985.€€He€was€sentenced€to€lifeÏimprisonment.€€His€conviction€and€sentence€were€affirmed€upon€direct€appeal€toÏthis€Court.€€òòState€v.€Jimmy€Wayne€ð ðJimboðð€Wilsonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€717,€SullivanÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€14,€1986),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1987).ÌÌà àHe€filed€his€first€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€May€21,€1987.€ÏIn€furtherance€of€this€petition,€he€filed€various€òòproóó€òòseóó€motions,€multiple€òòproóó€òòseóóÏamendments€to€the€petition€and€one€amendment€with€the€assistance€of€counsel,Ïœresulting›€œin€approximately›€twenty„nine€issues€raised€in€the€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòJimmy€Wayne€Wilson€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€909,€SullivanÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€29,€1991),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóóÏ(Tenn.€1991).€€After€conducting€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€theÏpetition.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€2.€€On€appeal,€this€Court€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€in€all€respects€except€on€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€appellateÍcounsel.€€òòId.óó€at€13.€€On€that€issue,€this€Court€remanded€for€further€proceedings.€ÏòòId.óó€€An€evidentiary€hearing€was€eventually€œconducted€in€that€regard,›€and€the€trialÏcourt€found€the€issue€to€lack€merit€and€denied€the€petition.€€œThat›€judgment€wasÏaffirmed€on€appeal€to€this€Court.€€òòJimmy€Wayne€Wilson€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.Ï03C01„9203„CR„104,€Sullivan€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€1,Ï1992).ÌÌà àIn€the€meantime,€the€Petitioner€filed€a€second€òòproóó€òòseóó€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€May€31,€1990.€€In€that€petition,€he€argued€that€the€1989ÏCriminal€Sentencing€Reform€Act€œhad€repealed›€the€habitual€criminal€enhancementÏstatute,€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€39„1„801,€resulting€in€his€œbeingÏincarcerated›€in€violation€of€his€constitutional€rights€to€equal€protection,€to€dueÏprocess,€and€against€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€òòJimmy€Wayne€Wilson€v.ÏStateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€970,€Sullivan€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Jun.€12,Ï1991),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€trial€court€denied€the€petition,Ïfinding€that€it€was€barred€by€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations.€€The€judgmentÏof€the€trial€court€was€affirmed€on€appeal€to€this€Court.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€3.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€later€filed€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus,€which€wasÏdenied€by€the€trial€court€on€February€20,€1996.€€òòJimmy€Wayne€Wilson€v.€Stateóó,ÏC.C.A.€No.€03C01„9604„CC„00142,€Sullivan€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,ÍKnoxville,€Aug.€12,€1997).€€In€that€petition,€he€argued€that€he€was€beingÏð ðunlawfully€restrained€of€his€libertyðð€because€the€statute€under€which€he€wasÏsentenced€as€an€habitual€criminal€was€rendered€unconstitutional€by€ourÏsupreme€courtððs€holding€in€òòGaskin€v.€Collinsóó,€661€S.W.2d€865€(Tenn.€1983).€€òòId.óó,Ïslip€op.€at€2„3.€€The€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€petition€was€affirmed€on€appeal€toÏthis€Court.€€òòId.óó€at€7.ÌÌà àOn€May€8,€1996,€the€Petitioner€filed€the€òòproóó€òòseóó€motion€to€reopen€his€firstÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€which€is€the€subject€of€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€InÏhis€motion,€the€Petitioner€raised€three€grounds:ÌÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ1)€œThat›€our€supreme€courtððs€holding€in€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891€S.W.2dÏ597€(Tenn.€1994),€established€a€constitutional€right€not€recognized€atÏthe€time€of€his€trial€but€requiring€retrospective€application€to€his€case;ÌÌ2)€that€DNA€testing€would€prove€that€he€was€actually€innocent€of€theÏrape;€œand›ÌÌ3)€that€his€habitual€offender€sentence€was€based€in€part€on€aÏconviction€which€has€been€invalidated.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(1)€„€(3)€(Supp.€1996).€€Through€an€order€filedÏon€May€21,€1996,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€without€appointing€counsel€andÏwithout€conducting€an€evidentiary€hearing,€finding€that€it€did€not€present€a€colorableÏclaim€for€relief.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a),€(b)€(Supp.€1996).€€TheÏPetitioner€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€May€30,€1996.ÌÌà àAfter€carefully€examining€the€record€and€the€procedural€posture€of€the€case,Ïwe€conclude€that€this€appeal€must€be€dismissed.€€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÏsection€40„30„217€explains€ð ðmotions€to€reopenðð€as€created€by€the€Post„ConvictionÏProcedure€Act€of€1995.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„217(c)€sets€forthÏthe€proper€procedure€for€appealing€the€denial€of€a€motion€to€reopen€a€prior€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief€to€this€Court.€€It€provides€as€follows:ÌÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à(c)€If€the€motion€is€denied,€the€petitioner€shall€have€ten€(10)€daysÏto€file€òòan€application€in€the€court€of€criminal€appeals€seekingÏpermission€to€appealóó.€€The€application€shall€be€accompanied€byÏcopies€of€all€the€documents€filed€by€both€parties€in€the€trial€court€andÏthe€order€denying€the€motion.€€The€state€shall€have€ten€(10)€days€toÏrespond.ÌÌÓÓÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(c)€(Supp.€1996)€(emphasis€added).€€This€provisionÏobviously€does€not€provide€for€an€appeal€as€of€right€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€from€the€denial€of€a€motion€to€reopen.€€ÏAn€appeal€as€of€right€ð ðdoes€not€require€permission€of€the€trial€or€appellate€court€asÏa€prerequisite€to€taking€an€appeal.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(d).€€By€the€explicitÏprovision€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„217(c),€however,€anÏappeal€to€this€Court€from€a€denial€of€a€motion€to€reopen€requires€that€the€petitionerÏseek€permission€to€appeal.€€Thus,€as€another€panel€of€this€Court€recently€stated,Ïthe€procedure€provided€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„217(c)Ïparallels€Rule€10€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€òòSeeóó€òòGeorge€L.ÏMcGhee€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9607„CR„00213,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÍApp.,€Jackson,€Sept.€30,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€fact,€theÏòòMcGheeóó€court,€noting€the€parallels€with€Rule€10€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure,€recommended€that€petitioners€use€subsection€(c)€of€Rule€10Ïas€a€guide€when€drafting€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€pursuant€toÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„217(c).€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€The€òòMcGheeóóÏcourt€pointed€out,€however,€that€because€an€appeal€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„217(c)€is€not€specifically€a€Rule€10€appeal,€the€technicalÏrequirements€of€Rule€10(c)€may€not€be€invoked€to€deny€an€application.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€Petitioner€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€with€the€clerk€of€theÏtrial€court€as€if€he€were€appealing€pursuant€to€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€The€notice€of€appeal€statedÏsimply€that€the€Petitioner€ð ðhereby€appeals€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€from€theÏfinal€judgment€entered€in€the€above€number€[sic]€action€on€May€20,€1996,€by€JudgeÏArden€L.€Hill.ðð€€The€Petitioner€did€not€file€an€application€with€this€Court€seekingÏpermission€to€appeal€œand€did›€not€include€copies€of€all€the€documents€filed€by€bothÏparties€in€the€trial€court€and€the€order€denying€the€motion.€€In€short,€the€Petitioner€didÏnot€comply€with€the€plain€requirements€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„217(c),€but€œapparently›€attempted€to€pursue€an€appeal€from€the€denial€of€hisÏmotion€to€reopen€by€way€of€Rule€3€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€AppellateÏProcedure.€€Because€the€Petitioner€did€not€comply€with€the€requirements€ofÍTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„217(c)€in€pursuing€an€appeal€from€theÏdenial€of€his€motion€to€reopen,€we€conclude€that€this€appeal€is€not€properly€beforeÏthis€Court.€€Accordingly,€we€must€dismiss€the€appeal.ÌÌà àEven€if€we€were€to€deem€this€appeal€as€properly€before€this€Court€andÏconsider€its€merits,€we€believe€that€the€trial€judge€did€not€err€or€abuse€his€discretionÏin€denying€the€motion€to€reopen.€€Relief€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„30„217(a)€œmay›€be€œgranted€only›€where€(1)€the€claim€in€the€motion€is€based€uponÏa€final€ruling€of€an€appellate€court€establishing€a€constitutional€right€that€was€notÏrecognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial,€if€retrospective€application€of€that€right€isÏrequired€and€the€motion€is€filed€within€one€year€of€the€ruling;€or€(2)€the€claim€in€theÏmotion€is€based€upon€new€scientific€evidence€establishing€that€the€petitioner€isÏactually€innocent€of€the€offense€or€offenses€for€which€the€petitioner€was€convicted;Ïor€(3)€the€claim€asserted€in€the€motion€seeks€relief€from€a€sentence€that€wasÏenhanced€because€of€a€previous€conviction€and€such€conviction€in€the€case€inÏwhich€the€claim€is€asserted€was€not€a€guilty€plea€with€an€agreed€sentence€and€theÏmotion€is€filed€within€one€year€of€the€finality€of€the€ruling€holding€the€previousÏconviction€to€be€invalid;€and€(4)€it€appears€that€the€facts€underlying€the€claim,€if€true,Ïwould€establish€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€toÏhave€the€conviction€set€aside€or€the€sentence€reduced.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(1)€„€(4).€€Furthermore,€in€reviewing€the€denial€of€a€motion€to€reopen,€this€CourtÍshall€not€grant€the€application€unless€it€appears€that€the€trial€court€abused€itsÏdiscretion€in€denying€the€motion.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(c)€(Supp.€1996).ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€first€claim€in€his€motion€to€reopen€is€that€our€supreme€courtððsÏholding€in€òòState€v.€Kendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994),€established€aÏconstitutional€right€not€recognized€at€the€time€of€his€trial€but€requiring€retrospectiveÏapplication€to€his€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996).€ÏHe€asserts€that€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€evidence€was€admitted€at€his€1985€rape€trial€inÏviolation€of€the€subsequent€holding€in€òòKendricksóó,€thereby€depriving€him€of€his€right€toÏa€fair€trial.€€He€contends€that€the€òòKendricksóó€holding€must€be€applied€retroactively€toÏhis€case.ÌÌà àIn€òòKendricksóó,€our€supreme€court€œmodified›€the€principles€governing€the€use€ofÏð ðfresh€complaintðð€evidence€in€cases€where€an€adult€is€the€victim€of€a€sexual€crime.€ÏòòKendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€603.€€Prior€to€òòKendricksóó,€Tennessee€law€allowed€ð ðbothÏòòthe€fact€and€the€detailsóó€of€the€complaint€to€be€admitted€during€the€stateððs€case„in„chief.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€602€(citing€òòPhillips€v.€Stateóó,€28€Tenn.€(1€Hum.)€246€(1848))€(emphasisÏin€original).€€The€òòKendricksóó€court€overruled€òòPhillipsóó€and€its€progeny€ð ðto€the€extent€thatÏthey€permit€testimony€of€the€òòdetailsóó€of€the€incident€to€be€presented€before€theÏvictimððs€credibility€is€attackedðð€in€cases€involving€an€adult€victim€of€a€sexual€crime.€ÍòòId.óó€at€603€(emphasis€in€original).€€The€holding€in€òòKendricksóó€did€not€affect€theÏadmissibility€of€the€fact€of€the€complaint,€even€during€the€stateððs€case„in„chief.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€it€is€unclear€whether€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€evidence€wasÏœadmitted€during€the€Petitionerððs€1985€rape€trial›€in€violation€of€the€principles€laterÏannounced€in€òòKendricksóó.€€The€record€on€appeal€does€not€contain€transcripts€of€theÏtrial€testimony.€€According€to€the€Petitionerððs€motion€to€reopen,€Officer€Joan€LeonardÏtestified€at€trial€regarding€both€the€œfact€of›€and€the€details€of€the€victimððs€complaint€toÏher€shortly€after€the€rape.€€The€motion€œto€reopen€does›€not€indicate€whether€OfficerÏLeonardððs€testimony€occurred€during€the€Stateððs€case„in„chief€or€during€rebuttal,€orÏwhether€the€testimony€occurred€before€or€after€the€victim€testified€at€trial.€€Thus,€fromÏthe€record€before€us,€we€cannot€conclude€that€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€evidence€wasÏadmitted€in€violation€of€the€subsequently„announced€principles€of€òòKendricksóó.ÌÌà àIn€any€event,€regardless€of€whether€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€evidence€was€admittedÏagainst€the€Petitioner€in€violation€of€òòKendricksóó,€we€do€not€believe€that€òòKendricksóóÏestablished€a€constitutional€right€that€was€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€ofÏthe€Petitionerððs€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(1)€(Supp.€1996).€ÏRather,€òòKendricksóó€modified€an€evidentiary€principle€governing€the€admissibility€ofÏð ðfresh€complaintðð€evidence€in€certain€cases.€€Moreover,€òòKendricksóó€specifically€statesÏthat€it€applies€ð ðto€all€cases€tried€òòafteróó€the€release€of€this€opinion€and€to€thoseÍwherein€a€motion€for€new€trial€was€granted€on€or€after€the€date€of€the€release€of€thisÏopinion.ðð€€òòKendricksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€606€(emphasis€added).€€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„217(a)(1),€however,€provides€relief€only€if€retrospectiveÏapplication€of€a€constitutional€right€is€required.€€Furthermore,€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated€section€40„30„217(a)(1)€requires€that€the€motion€to€reopen€be€filed€withinÏone€year€of€the€ruling€establishing€the€constitutional€right.€€The€Petitioner,€however,Ïfiled€his€motion€to€reopen€on€May€8,€1996,€more€than€one€year€after€òòKendricksóó€wasÏreleased€on€December€5,€1994.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€Petitionerððs€claimÏconcerning€òòKendricksóó€and€the€admission€of€ð ðfresh€complaintðð€evidence€at€his€œ1985Ïrape€trial›€does€not€meet€the€substantive€or€procedural€requirements€for€reopeningÏhis€prior€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÏ40„30„217(a)(1).ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€second€claim€in€his€motion€to€reopen€is€that€new€scientificÏevidence,€namely€DNA€testing,€would€prove€that€he€is€actually€innocent€of€the€rape.€ÏòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(a)(2)€(Supp.€œ1996).€€The›€petition€does€notÏallege€that€he€already€has€new€scientific€evidence€establishing€his€innocence.€ÏRather,€it€merely€asserts€that€DNA€testing€ð ðwould€proveðð€that€he€did€not€commit€theÏrape.ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€argument€ignores€the€nature€of€the€evidence€introduced€at€theÏ1985€rape€trial.€€After€the€victim€reported€the€crime,€doctors€collected€hair€samplesÏand€made€œswabbings›€of€her€vagina.€€The€samples,€along€with€some€grass€orÏleaves€found€on€the€buttocks€of€the€victim,€were€examined€by€an€FBI€serologist.€ÏThe€serologist€testified€at€trial€that€he€found€no€blood€or€seminal€stains€on€theÏclothes€of€the€victim€and€that€there€was€no€semen€on€the€vaginal€smear,€genitalÏswab€or€the€debris.€€In€addition,€another€FBI€agent€testified€that€the€hair€samples€allÏbelonged€to€the€victim.€€In€fact,€these€experts€were€called€to€testify€at€trial€by€theÏPetitioner.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jimmy€Wayne€ð ðJimboðð€Wilsonóó,€C.C.A.€No.€717,€SullivanÏCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€14,€1986),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ï1987).ÌÌà àThus,€it€appears€that€law€enforcement€personnel€discovered€no€blood,Ïsemen€or€hair€linking€the€Petitioner€or€anyone€else€to€the€crime.€€In€short,€theÏprosecution€offered€no€testimony€regarding€scientific€evidence€of€this€type.€€Instead,Ïthe€principal€evidence€linking€the€Petitioner€to€the€crime€was€the€testimony€of€theÏvictim.€€As€a€result,€we€fail€to€see€how€DNA€testing€could€possibly€establish€theÏPetitionerððs€innocence€given€that€no€scientific€evidence€of€that€type€was€presentedÏat€trial€or€even€discovered€during€the€investigation€of€the€crime.€€There€simply€doesÏnot€appear€to€be€a€blood,€semen€or€hair€sample€from€the€victimððs€attacker€withÏwhich€to€compare€a€sample€of€the€Petitionerððs€DNA.€€Given€these€circumstances,Íwe€conclude€that€the€Petitionerððs€claim€that€DNA€testing€would€establish€hisÏinnocence€does€not€meet€the€requirements€for€reopening€his€prior€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„217(a)(2).ÌÌà àThe€Petitionerððs€third€claim€in€his€motion€to€reopen€is€that€his€habitual€offenderÏstatus€was€based€in€part€on€a€conviction€which€has€been€invalidated.€€He€assertsÏthat€one€of€the€convictions€used€to€support€his€habitual€criminal€status,€a€1971Ïconviction€for€concealing€stolen€property,€was€vacated€as€a€result€of€the€hearing€onÏhis€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€œThus,›€the€Petitioner€contends€that€hisÏsentence€as€an€habitual€offender€cannot€stand.ÌÌà àThe€Petitioner€raised€this€very€issue€in€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòJimmy€Wayne€Wilson€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€909,€Sullivan€County€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Knoxville,€May€29,€1991),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1991).€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€issue€lacked€merit,€and€this€Court€affirmed€the€trial€court€withÏregard€to€that€issue.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€5„7.€€Accordingly,€we€conclude€that€this€issueÏhas€been€previously€determined€to€be€without€merit.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„206(h)€(Supp.€1996).ÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€set€forth€in€the€discussion€above,€we€believe€that€the€trialÏjudge€did€not€abuse€his€discretion€in€dismissing€the€motion€to€reopen€and,€thus,€theÍjudgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„217(c)€(Supp.Ï1996).€€Because€the€Petitioner€failed€to€follow€the€statutory€procedure€for€appealingÏto€this€Court€from€the€denial€of€his€motion€to€reopen,€we€conclude€that€this€appealÏmust€be€dismissed.Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÓ  Óà àÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à____________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àDAVID€H.€WELLES,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌTHOMAS€T.€œWOODALL›,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGE