ÿWPCI' …# VU:a %› 0 4¡4Õé 0xø 0Dp ´ w@¼ 0Jü 0TF 0^š 0hø 0r` 0|Ò 0†N 0Ô 1ud U,Ù 0dU,iU *• B¿B)ÜDC AMH@•lÕ D3At5 0@¶K¸v~vÓ AOT%Æ£% 0Pi& 0D¹& D/ý& B,'˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó˜€* tÔôÔô3|xW (((3ÝÙ$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó J DK DL M N EO P EQ R DS «2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òFebruary€20,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó bÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€limitations€period€is€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102,€whichÏprovides€à àas€follows:€"A€prisoner€in€custody€under€sentence€of€a€court€of€this€stateÏmust€à àpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€under€this€chapter€within€three€(3)€years€of€theÏdate€à àof€the€final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellate€court€to€which€an€appeal€is€takenÏà àor€consideration€of€such€petition€shall€be€barred."Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝCaldwell€had€earlier€been€convicted€of€the€murder€of€Carl€Lipford.€€AlthoughÏthe€à àLipford€direct€appeal€was€not€published,€that€murder,€which€occurred€on€MarchÏ26,€à à1981„„€almost€two€months€after€the€Climer€murder€and€two€days€beforeÏCaldwell's€à àinitial€arrest€„„€is€referred€to€in€òòCaldwellóó,€671€S.W.2d€at€463,€n.1.€Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝA€factual€account€of€the€arrest€and€the€subsequent€events€is€set€forth€inÏòòCaldwellóó,€à à671€S.W.2d€at€462„63.Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ¬Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝAs€an€alternative€argument€on€the€"later„arising"€issue,€the€State€asserts€thatÏthe€à àlaw€enforcement€radio€logs€relied€upon€by€the€defendant€were€available€longÏbefore€à àthe€Court€of€Appeals€released€its€decision€in€òòCapital€Case€ResourceÏCenter€v.€à àWoodallóó€in€1992.€€In€fact,€the€State€asserts€that€the€logs€were€actuallyÏavailable€as€à àearly€as€1986,€when€this€Court€held,€in€òòMemphis€Publishing€Co.€v.€Holtóó,Ï710€S.W.2d€à à513€(Tenn.€1986),€that€"closed"€police€files€were€subject€to€inspectionÏunder€the€à àTennessee€Public€Records€Act.€€€Thus,€the€State€concludes,€theÏdefendant€was€not€à àjustified€in€waiting€so€long€to€file€his€claim.€We€also€reject€thisÏcontention.€€òòHoltóó€à àcannot€be€deemed€to€have€decided€the€issue,€as€the€precise€issueÏpresented€in€òòà àWoodallóó€was€whether€the€prosecution€and€police€records€of€a€case€òòunderÏcollateral€à àattackóó€were€in€fact€"closed"€for€purposes€of€the€Act.€€Furthermore,€asÏjustification€for€à àtheir€refusal€to€grant€this€petitioner€access€to€prosecution€files,€lawÏenforcement€à àofficials€cited€the€ongoing€òòWoodallóó€litigation€as€evidence€that€the€issueÏhad€not€been€à àresolved€by€the€courts.€€Ì AÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€right€is€guaranteed€by€the€Eighth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€à àand€Art.€I,€ðð€16€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5((3¾¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ , ÑÑ ` Ñ›Ñ7€ƒXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑØ ØÓ&€X°d&Óà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSON€ÌÌÌÌÌRICHARD€CALDWELL,à àà àà à)à àà àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àAppellee,à àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€Filed:€€€February€20,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àMADISON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àHonorable€Whit€Lafon,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àÌà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|#` Å `€€Lßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02S01„9505„CC„00044à àà àÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌCharles€W.€Bursonà àà àà àà àDavid€C.€StebbinsÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àColumbus,€OhioÌÌMichael€E.€Mooreà àà àà àà àJohn€G.€OlivaÌSolicitor€Generalà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌGlenn€R.€PrudenÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌNashville,€TennesseeÌÌJames€W.€ThompsonÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÌTwenty„Sixth€Judicial€DistrictÌÌà@ àÔ€#„ÔÌà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€#XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALSÌREVERSED.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDROWOTA,€J.ÇÓÓà àThe€State€of€Tennessee€appeals€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€orderÏreversing€the€trial€court's€dismissal€of€Richard€Caldwell's€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€issue€for€our€determination€is€whether€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€erred€in€reversing€the€trial€court's€judgment€and€remanding€the€case€forÏan€evidentiary€hearing€to€determine€if€the€petitioner€should€be€relieved,€pursuantÏto€our€decisions€in€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(1992)€and€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,Ï903€S.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995),€of€the€consequences€of€the€expiration€of€the€three„year€limitations€period€applicable€to€post„conviction€petitions.× ƒ) ××  ×€€For€the€reasonsÏthat€follow,€we€conclude€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€did€err,€and€thereforeÏreverse€its€judgment€and€dismiss€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.ÌÌÓ  Óà àòòò òFACTS€AND€PROCEDURAL€HISTORYó óóóÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àÌà àIn€October€1982€Richard€Caldwell€was€convicted€of€the€murder€of€LarryÍClimer€and€sentenced€to€death.€€This€Court€affirmed€the€conviction€and€sentenceÏon€direct€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Caldwellóó,€671€S.W.2d€459€(Tenn.€1984).× ƒ+ ××  ×€€Over€theÏnext€several€years,€Caldwell€filed€two€petitions€for€post„conviction€relief,€both€ofÏwhich€were€eventually€dismissed€by€the€trial€court.€€These€petitions€wereÏconsolidated€for€purposes€of€appeal€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€and€thatÏcourt€denied€relief€in€March€1990.€€We€denied€Caldwell's€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€from€that€judgment.€Ìà àÌà àCaldwell€filed€the€petition€that€is€the€subject€of€this€appeal€in€JanuaryÏ1993.€€In€that€petition€Caldwell€alleged€that€his€initial€arrest€„„€which€occurred€inÏthe€early€morning€of€March€28,€1981,€for€public€drunkenness€„„€was€a€pretext,Ïbeing€undertaken€for€the€sole€purpose€of€questioning€him€and€gatheringÍevidence€against€him€concerning€the€disappearance€of€Carl€Lipford.× ƒ, ××  ×€€CaldwellÏargued€that€this€illegal€arrest€violated€his€rights€under€the€state€and€federalÏconstitutions€to€be€free€from€unreasonable€seizures,€and€that€all€evidenceÏobtained€against€him€as€a€result€of€this€pretextual€arrest,€including€his€confession,Ïshould€have€been€suppressed.€€In€the€petition,€Caldwell€conceded€that€the€illegalÏarrest€claim€was€filed€well€beyond€the€limitations€period€applicable€to€post„convictions€claims,€which€expired€in€July€1989.€€However,€he€argued€that€he€wasÏnot€aware€of€this€claim€until€reviewing€certain€radio€logs€from€law€enforcementÏofficials€which€indicated€that€police€had€been€looking€for€him€during€the€afternoonÏand€evening€of€March€27,€1981,€in€connection€with€Lipford's€disappearance.€ÏFurthermore,€Caldwell€asserted€that€these€logs€had€not€been€available€to€himÏuntil€the€Court€of€Appeals,€in€an€unpublished€1992€decision,€held€that€police€filesÏconcerning€cases€under€collateral€attack€were€"public€records"€pursuant€to€theÏTennessee€Public€Records€Act,€thus€ending€the€authorities'€refusal€to€allow€himÏto€inspect€the€logs.€€Because€these€facts€denied€him€a€reasonable€opportunity€toÍlitigate€his€pretextual€arrest€claim,€Caldwell€contended,€€he€was€entitled€to€beÏrelieved€of€the€expiration€of€the€limitations€period€pursuant€to€òòBurfordóó.Ì€€Ìà àIn€response€to€this€petition,€the€State€filed€a€one„page€motion€to€dismiss,Ïarguing€that€the€petition€was€time„barred.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€motion€onÏthe€following€day.€€Caldwell€then€appealed€from€this€judgment€to€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals.Ìà àÌà àThat€Court€reversed€the€trial€court's€judgment€as€to€the€pretextual€arrestÏclaim€and€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€thatÏclaim.€€The€Court€reasoned€as€follows:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àBecause€there€was€no€evidentiary€hearing,€we€cannot€determineÏwhether€the€state€withheld€any€evidence€of€an€unlawful€arrest.€€And,Ïeven€if€so,€whether€the€evidence€would€have€affected€theÏadmissibility€of€the€confession.€€Finally,€òòBurfordóó€supports€theÏapplication€of€the€three„year€statute€of€limitations€only€when€theÏpetitioner€had€a€prior€opportunity€to€legitimately€litigate€the€issue.€ÏThus€the€trial€court€must€also€determine€whether€the€informationÏreleased€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Public€Records€Act€qualifies€asÏan€exception€to€the€statute€of€limitations.€€That€is,€whether€theÍinformation€released€sheds€any€new€light€on€the€subject€of€theÏadmissibility€of€the€confession.ÌÌà8 àFinally,€even€if€a€confession€is€found€to€be€inadmissible€as€the€fruitÏof€an€illegal€arrest,€any€error€by€its€introduction€into€evidence€mightÏbe€harmless€in€light€œof€the›€other€evidence.€€On€direct€appeal,€ourÏsupreme€court€described€the€evidence€as€'overwhelming.'€€Thus€theÏtrial€court€may€consider€the€admission€of€the€confession€or€anyÏother€evidence€tainted€by€any€pretextual€arrest€as€harmless€beyondÏa€reasonable€doubt.€€€€à àà àÌà8 àÌÌÌÓÓà àAfter€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals'€judgment€was€handed€down,€bothÏparties€filed€petitions€to€rehear,€which€were€denied.€€Both€parties€then€filedÏapplications€for€permission€to€appeal€with€this€Court.€€We€granted€the€State'sÏapplication€in€order€to€address€the€parameters€of€our€òòBurfordóó€decision.€€ÌÌÓ  Óòòò òANALYSISó óóóÌÓ  Óà àÌà àOur€analysis€in€this€case€obviously€must€begin€with€an€examination€of€ÏòòBurfordóó.€€In€that€case,€in€1976€the€defendant€Burford€pleaded€guilty€to€and€wasÏconvicted€of€five€counts€of€armed€robbery€in€Wilson€County.€€In€November€1984ÍBurford€was€convicted€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€in€Wilson€County;€andÏthe€State€used€this€conviction€and€the€five€1976€convictions€to€establish€BurfordÏas€a€habitual€criminal.€€As€a€result,€he€was€sentenced€to€life.ÌÌà àIn€1985,€Burford€was€convicted€of€robbery€with€a€deadly€weapon€inÏTrousdale€County;€and€the€State€used€this€conviction€along€with€the€five€1976Ïconvictions€to€have€him€sentenced€as€a€persistent€offender.€€The€conviction€andÏsentence€were€affirmed€on€appeal,€and€we€denied€Burford's€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€in€August€1986.€€ÌÌà àIn€1988€Burford€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€in€Wilson€County,Ïalleging€that€his€1976€convictions€were€invalid€because€he€had€not€been€advisedÏof€his€right€against€self„incrimination€before€pleading€guilty.€€In€October€1988€theÏWilson€County€Criminal€Court€agreed,€vacating€four€of€the€1976€convictions.€€ÌÌà àBurford€then€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€in€Trousdale€County€in€MayÏ1990,€alleging€that€because€four€of€the€underlying€convictions€were€invalid,€hisÍcurrent€sentence,€based€on€the€1985€persistent€offender€designation,€was€alsoÏerroneous.€€The€State€responded€by€alleging€that€the€limitations€period€hadÏexpired€in€August€1989€„„€three€years€after€the€action€of€the€highest€court€to€whichÏan€appeal€was€taken.€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€petition€on€statute€ofÏlimitations€grounds,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.ÌÌà àOn€appeal€to€this€Court,€Burford€argued€that€the€three€year€limitationsÏperiod€was€facially€unconstitutional€in€that€it€violated€due€process€by€barringÏotherwise€meritorious€claims€with€an€arbitrary€time€limitation.€€We€rejected€thisÏcontention,€holding€that€although€the€petitioner€has€a€liberty€interest€in€collaterallyÏattacking€constitutional€violations€occurring€during€trial,€the€State€has€a€legitimateÏinterest€in€enacting€procedural€rules€in€the€post„conviction€context€€to€prevent€"theÏlitigation€of€stale€and€fraudulent€claims,"€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€208,€quotingÏòòJimenez€v.€Weinbergeróó,€417€U.S.€628,€636,€94€S.Ct.€2496,€2501,€41€L.Ed.2d€363Ï(1974),€and€to€curtail€"the€cost€to€the€state€of€continually€allowing€prisoners€to€fileÏusually€fruitless€post„conviction€petitions."€€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€207.€ÌÌà àAlthough€we€held€that€the€post„conviction€limitations€period€was€notÏfacially€unconstitutional,€we€also€stated€that€the€time€bar€could€cause€dueÏprocess€problems€in€certain€factual€situations.€€€After€consulting€relevant€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€and€Tennessee€law,€we€concluded€that€the€limitationsÏperiod€would€only€violate€the€due€process€clauses€in€a€particular€case€if€it€deniedÏto€the€defendant€"a€reasonable€opportunity€to€have€the€claimed€issue€heard€andÏdecided."€€òòIdóó.€at€208.ÌÌà àHaving€set€forth€the€appropriate€constitutional€test,€we€proceeded€to€applyÏit€to€that€case,€first€addressing€the€State's€and€then€the€petitioner's€interest:€€Ìà8 àÓÓÌà8 àThere€is€nothing€stale€or€fraudulent€about€the€petitioner's€claim.€ÏAlthough€he€filed€his€petition€outside€the€time€limits€provided€by€theÏstatute€of€limitations,€there€is€no€difficulty€here€with€the€availability€ofÏwitnesses€or€the€memories€of€witnesses.€€Nor€is€there€a€problemÏwith€respect€to€a€groundless€claim€generating€excessive€costs.€€It€isÏabundantly€clear€that€the€petitioner€has€a€valid€claim€to€have€hisÏsentence€reduced,€and€all€the€Trousdale€County€court€will€have€toÏdo€is€examine€the€record€of€the€Wilson€County€proceedings.€€TheÏTrousdale€County€court€can€then€resentence€Burford€using€theÏappropriate€considerations€set€forth€in€the€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€governmental€interestÏrepresented€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€is€not€served€byÍapplying€the€statute€to€bar€Burford's€petition.ÌÌà8 àMoreover,€although€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€onlyÏprovides€an€opportunity€to€litigate€constitutional€attacks€upon€priorÏconvictions,€which€we€have€already€determined€is€not€aÏfundamental€right,€application€of€the€statute€to€bar€Burford's€petitionÏin€this€case€will€deny€him€of€a€fundamental€right.€€If€consideration€ofÏthe€petition€is€barred,€Burford€will€be€forced€to€serve€a€persistentÏoffender€sentence€that€was€enhanced€by€previous€convictions€thatÏno€longer€stand.€€As€a€result,€Burford€will€be€forced€to€serve€anÏexcessive€sentence€in€violation€of€his€rights€under€the€EighthÏAmendment€to€the€U.S.€Constitution,€and€article€I,€ðð€16€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution,€which,€by€definition,€are€fundamental€rightsÏentitled€to€heightened€protection.ÌÌÓÓòòÌIdóó.€(citations€omitted.)€€Thus,€we€concluded€that€the€limitations€period€wasÏunconstitutional€as€applied€to€Burford.ÌÌà àWe€recently€had€the€occasion€to€revisit€òòBurfordóó€in€òòSands€v.€Stateóó,€903ÏS.W.2d€297€(Tenn.€1995).€€€In€that€case,€we€attempted€to€summarize€òòBurfordóó€andÏto€enunciate€a€clear€procedure€for€its€application€by€the€trial€courts:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIt€will€be€helpful€to€summarize€the€basic€rule€to€be€derived€fromÏòòBurfordóó:€that,€in€certain€circumstances,€due€process€prohibits€theÍstrict€application€of€the€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€aÏpetitioner's€claim€when€the€grounds€for€relief,€whether€legal€orÏfactual,€arise€after€the€'final€action€of€the€highest€state€appellateÏcourt€to€which€an€appeal€is€taken'€„„€or,€in€other€words,€when€theÏgrounds€arise€after€the€point€at€which€the€limitations€period€wouldÏnormally€have€begun€to€run.€€In€applying€€the€òòBurfordóó€rule€to€specificÏfactual€situations,€courts€should€utilize€a€three„step€process:€(1)Ïdetermine€when€the€limitations€period€would€normally€have€begunÏto€run;€(2)€determine€whether€the€grounds€for€relief€actually€aroseÏafter€the€limitations€period€would€normally€have€commenced;€andÏ(3)€if€the€grounds€are€'later„arising,'€determine€if,€under€the€facts€ofÏthe€case,€a€strict€application€of€the€limitations€period€wouldÏeffectively€deny€the€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€presentÏthe€claim.€€In€making€this€final€determination,€courts€should€carefullyÏweigh€the€petitioner's€liberty€interest€in€'collaterally€attackingÏconstitutional€violations€occurring€during€the€conviction€process,'Ïagainst€the€State's€interest€in€preventing€the€litigation€of€'stale€andÏfraudulent€claims.'ÌÌòòSandsóó,€903€S.W.2d€at€301(citations€omitted.)€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àWith€òòBurfordóó€and€òòSandsóó€clearly€in€mind,€we€turn€to€the€contentions€of€theÏparties€in€this€case.€€€The€State€first€argues€that€òòBurfordóó€should€not€apply€hereÏbecause€the€claim€was€not€"later„arising"€under€the€second€prong€of€the€òòSandsóóÏformulation.€€The€State€argues€that€the€claim€was€not€"later„arising"€because€theÏpetitioner€had€sufficient€information€in€1981€and€1982€„„€at€the€time€of€his€trials€forÍthe€murders€of€Carl€Lipford€and€Larry€Climer€„„€to€put€him€on€notice€that€he€couldÏbring€a€claim€for€pretextual€arrest.€€The€State€advanced€this€argument€for€the€firstÏtime€in€its€petition€to€rehear€filed€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€In€thatÏpetition,€it€attached€excerpts€from€the€transcripts€of€the€Lipford€and€Climer€murderÏtrials€which€contain,€it€says,€testimony€from€law€enforcement€officials€clearlyÏindicating€that€the€arrest€was€pretextual.€€ÌÌà àWe€cannot€accept€this€argument.€€First,€while€it€is€true€that€a€post„conviction€court€can€take€judicial€notice€of€prior€proceedings€in€the€same€case,ÏòòDelbridge€v.€Stateóó,€742€S.W.2d€267€(Tenn.€1987),€the€State's€method€ofÏpresenting€this€evidence€was€inappropriate€in€that€it€did€not€afford€the€defendantÏany€œmeans€of›€œresponding›€to€that€evidence.€€Furthermore,€and€more€importantly,Ïthe€material€submitted€by€the€State€is€essentially€ambiguous€as€to€the€nature€ofÏthe€arrest.€€While€some€of€the€material€might€be€read€to€support€the€notion€that€theÏarrest€was€pretextual,€all€the€officers€testified€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€forÏpublic€drunkenness,€and€that€he€was€indeed€intoxicated€at€the€time.€€Therefore,Ïwe€cannot€conclude€that€the€defendant€should€have€known€that€he€had€a€claimÍfor€a€pretextual€arrest€in€1981€or€1982.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€State€alternatively€argues€that€òòBurfordóó€should€not€apply€because€theÏpetitioner's€interest€in€attacking€any€constitutional€error€occurring€during€his€trialÏis€outweighed€by€the€legitimate€State€interests€in€a€strict€enforcement€of€theÏlimitations€period.€€As€we€did€in€òòBurfordóó,€we€must€carefully€weigh€the€interests€ofÏboth€parties€to€determine€if€due€process€requires€the€suspension€of€the€limitationsÏperiod€so€as€to€afford€the€petitioner€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€litigate€the€claim.€ÌÌà àFirst,€it€is€beyond€question€that€the€State€interests€here€are€much€strongerÏthan€in€òòBurfordóó.€€With€respect€to€the€interest€in€preventing€the€litigation€of€staleÏclaims,€we€note€that€the€events€at€issue€here€occurred€almost€fifteen€years€ago.€ÏBecause€the€officers€involved€will€likely€be€called€to€testify€regarding€the€arrestÏand€the€ensuing€events,€there€is€a€real€danger€that€their€memories€will€haveÏfaded€to€such€a€degree€as€to€make€reconstructing€the€events€difficult€orÏimpossible.€€Moreover,€there€is€the€possibility€that€the€officers€may€not€even€beÏavailable€to€testify,€another€concern€voiced€in€òòBurfordóó.€€Thus,€all€the€dangersÏinherent€in€the€litigation€of€stale€claims€„„€which€the€State€has€a€legitimate€interestÏin€preventing€„„€appear€to€be€present€here.€€Ìà àThe€other€State€interest€enunciated€in€òòBurfordó󀄄€that€of€preventingÏexcessive€costs€„„€is€also€implicated€here.€€In€stark€contrast€to€òòBurfordóó,€where€theÏpetitioner€was€merely€required€to€present€the€Wilson€County€judgment€to€ensureÏsuccess€on€his€claim,€the€petitioner€here€must€successfully€litigate€several€issuesÏrelating€to€the€allegedly€pretextual€arrest€before€he€receives€any€benefit€at€allÏfrom€the€claim.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€ably€summarized€the€substantialÏlitigative€hurdles€facing€the€petitioner:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThese€conclusions,€however,€do€not€necessarily€require€any€grantÏof€relief.€€First,€even€if€the€arrest€was€illegal,€that€alone€is€of€no€helpÏto€this€petitioner.€€There€is€no€constitutional€immunity€from€anÏunlawful€arrest.€€The€fact€that€an€accused€has€been€unlawfullyÏarrested€only€becomes€relevant€when€evidence€tainted€by€theÏunlawful€arrest€is€sought€to€be€introduced€by€the€state.€€[ForÏexample,]€an€illegal€warrantless€arrest€or€an€arrest€made€under€theÏcolor€of€an€invalid€warrant€has€no€adverse€effect€upon€an€indictmentÏor€a€presentment€returned€by€a€grand€jury€subsequent€to€the€arrest.€ÏEven€if€an€arrest€is€illegal,€a€confession€which€follows€might€often€beÏpurged€of€the€primary€taint.ÌÌà8 à...ÌÌà8 àFinally,€even€if€a€confession€is€found€to€be€inadmissible€as€the€fruitÏof€an€illegal€arrest,€any€error€by€its€introduction€into€evidence€mightÏbe€harmless€in€light€of€the€other€evidence.ÌÌ(citations€omitted.)ÌÌÌÌÓÓTherefore,€on€remand€the€petitioner€would€first€have€to€establish€that€the€arrestÏwas€in€fact€pretextual;€if€this€is€established,€he€would€then€have€to€litigate€theÏsuppression€issue;€and€finally,€if€this€is€successful,€he€would€have€to€litigate€theÏharmless€error€issue.€€This€hearing€will€thus€require€the€litigation€of€severalÏpossibly€complex€legal€issues,€all€at€substantial€costs€to€the€State.€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€œhand,›€we€acknowledge€that€the€petitioner€has€an€interest€inÏchallenging€the€constitutional€error€allegedly€made€during€his€trial.€€Furthermore,Ïwe€acknowledge€that€the€right€to€be€free€from€unreasonable€seizures€is€in€aÏsense€"fundamental"€in€that€it€is€included€in€the€text€of€the€Fourth€Amendment€toÏthe€United€States€Constitution€and€Art.€I,€ðð€7€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòSeeóóÏRonald€D.€Rotunda€&€John€E.€Nowak,€Treatise€on€Constitutional€Law:€SubstanceÏand€Procedure,€ðð€15.7€(2d€ed.€1992).€€However,€it€is€important€to€recognize€thatÏthe€precise€claim€at€issue€here€„„€the€"right"€to€suppress€evidence€garnered€as€aÏresult€of€an€unreasonable€seizure€„„€is€very€different€in€kind€from€theÏ"fundamental"€right€at€issue€in€òòBurfordó󀄄€the€right€to€be€free€from€an€excessiveÏsentence.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€right€at€issue€in€òòBurfordóó€is€a€òòpersonal€trialóó€right€of€a€defendantÏwhich€goes€directly€to€the€òòjustice€or€integrityóó€of€the€conviction€or€sentence.€€On€theÏother€hand,€the€"right"€to€exclude€evidence€gathered€as€a€result€of€anÏunreasonable€seizure,€based€as€it€is€on€the€rationale€of€deterring€policeÍmisconduct,€is€not€a€personal€trial€right.€€And€a€violation€of€the€constitutionalÏguarantees,€if€proven,€does€not€necessarilyœ€result€in€a€reversal€of€the€conviction.ÌÌà àTwo€United€States€Supreme€Court€cases€will€serve€to€illustrate€this€point.€ÏIn€òòStone€v.€Powellóó,€428€U.S.€465,€96€S.Ct.3037,€49€L.Ed.2d€(1976),€the€CourtÏheld€that€a€prisoner€is€not€entitled€to€raise€a€Fourth€Amendment€claim€in€a€habeasÏcorpus€proceeding€where€the€State€has€afforded€a€full€and€fair€opportunity€toÏlitigate€the€claim€in€state€court.€€This€holding€was€based,€in€part,€on€the€nature€of€aÏFourth€Amendment€claim.€€The€òòStoneóó€court€explained:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€primary€justification€for€the€exclusionary€rule€then€is€theÏdeterrence€of€police€conduct€that€violates€Fourth€Amendment€rights.€ÏPost„òòMappóó€decisions€have€established€that€the€rule€is€not€aÏpersonal€constitutional€right.€€It€is€not€calculated€to€redress€the€injuryÏto€the€privacy€of€the€victim€of€the€search€or€seizure,€for€anyÏ'reparation€comes€too€late.'ÌÌòòÌÌStoneóó,€428€U.S.€at€486,€96€S.Ct.€at€3048.€€The€Court€also€reasoned€that:ÌÌÌÌ€à8 à'A€claim€of€illegal€search€and€seizure€under€the€Fourth€AmendmentÏis€crucially€different€from€many€other€constitutional€rights;€ordinarilyÏthe€evidence€seized€can€in€no€way€have€been€renderedÏuntrustworthy€by€the€means€of€its€seizure€and€indeed€often€thisÏevidence€alone€establishes€beyond€virtually€any€shadow€of€a€doubtÏthat€the€defendant€is€guilty.'€€ÌÌà8 àApplication€of€the€rule€thus€deflects€the€truthfinding€process€andÏoften€frees€the€guilty.€€The€disparity€in€particular€cases€between€theÏerror€committed€by€the€police€officer€and€the€windfall€afforded€aÏguilty€defendant€by€application€of€the€rule€is€contrary€to€the€idea€ofÏproportionality€that€is€essential€to€the€concept€of€justice.€€Thus,Ïalthough€the€rule€is€thought€to€deter€unlawful€police€activity€in€partÏthrough€the€nurturing€of€respect€for€Fourth€Amendment€values,€ifÏapplied€indiscriminately€it€may€well€have€the€opposite€effect€ofÏgenerating€disrespect€for€the€law€and€administration€of€justice.€ÌÌòòStoneóó,€428€U.S.€at€490„91,€96€S.Ct.€at€3050„51€(citations€omitted).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àIn€contrast,€in€òòWithrow€v.€Williamsóó,€___€U.S.€___,€113€S.Ct.€1745,€123ÏL.Ed.€2d€407€(1993),€the€Court€considered€the€Government's€argument€thatÏòòStoneóó€should€be€extended€to€bar€petitioners€from€raising€claims€in€habeasÏcorpus€proceedings€based€on€violations€of€òòMirandaóó€rights.€€In€rejecting€thisÏargument,€the€Court€reasoned:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àAs€we€explained€in€òòStoneóó,€the€òòMappóó€rule€is€'not€a€personalÏconstitutional€right,'€but€serves€to€deter€future€constitutionalÏviolations;€although€it€mitigates€the€juridical€consequences€ofÏinvading€the€defendant's€privacy,€the€exclusion€of€evidence€at€trialÏcan€do€nothing€to€remedy€the€completed€and€wholly€extrajudicialÏFourth€Amendment€violation.€Nor€can€the€òòMappóó€rule€be€thought€toÏenhance€the€soundness€of€the€criminal€process€by€improving€theÏreliability€of€evidence€introduced€at€trial.€€Quite€the€contrary,€as€weÏexplained€in€òòStoneóó,€the€evidence€excluded€under€òòMappóó€'is€typicallyÏreliable€and€often€the€most€probative€information€bearing€on€theÏguilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant.'ÌÌà8 àòòMirandaóó€differs€from€òòMappóó€in€both€respects.€€'Prophylactic'€€though€itÏmay€be,€in€protecting€a€defendant's€Fifth€Amendment€privilegeÏagainst€self„incrimination€òòMirandaóó€safeguards€a€'fundamental€òòtrialóóÏright.'€€The€privilege€embodies€'principles€of€humanity€and€civilÏliberty,€which€had€been€secured€in€the€mother€country€only€afterÏyears€of€struggle,'€and€reflects€'many€of€our€fundamental€values€andÏmost€noble€aspirations'€...€ÌÌà8 àNor€does€the€Fifth€Amendment€'trial€right'€protected€by€òòMirandaóóÏserve€some€value€necessarily€divorced€from€the€correctÏascertainment€of€guilt.€€'A€system€of€criminal€law€enforcement€whichÏcomes€to€rely€on€the€confession€will,€in€the€long€run,€be€less€reliableÏand€more€subject€to€abuses€than€a€system€relying€uponÏindependent€investigation.'€€By€bracing€against€'the€possibility€ofÏunreliable€statements€in€every€instance€of€in„custody€interrogation,'ÏòòMirandaóó€serves€to€guard€against€'the€use€of€unreliable€statements€atÏtrial.'ÌÌòòÌÌÓÓWithrowóó,€___€U.S.€___,€113€S.Ct.€at€1753€(citations€omitted)(emphasis€inÏoriginal).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòKimmelman€v.€Morrisonóó,€477€U.S.€365,€374,€106€S.Ct.€2574,Ï2582,€91€L.Ed.€305€(1986)(declining€to€extend€òòStoneóó€to€certain€claims€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€a€Sixth€Amendment€"fundamental"€right€thatÏ"assures€the€fairness,€and€thus€the€legitimacy,€of€our€adversary€process");ÏòòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€323,€99€S.Ct.€2781,€2791,€61€L.Ed.2d€560Ï(1979)(declining€to€extend€òòStoneóó€to€bar€habeas€consideration€of€a€FourteenthÏAmendment€due€process€claim€of€insufficient€evidence€to€support€the€conviction,Ïreasoning€that€such€a€claim€was€"central€to€the€basic€issue€of€guilt€or€innocence");Ïand€òòRose€v.€Mitchellóó,€443€U.S.€545,€563,€99€S.Ct.€2993,€3003,€61€L.Ed.2d€739Ï(1979)(declining€to€extend€òòStoneóó€to€preclude€habeas€review€of€an€equalÏprotection€claim€of€racial€discrimination€in€selecting€a€state€grand„jury€foreman,Ïreasoning€that€such€a€claim€implicated€the€integrity€of€the€judicial€process).€ÏTherefore,€it€is€abundantly€clear€that€a€Fourth€Amendment€claim€is€notÏsubstantively€on€par€with€other€constitutional€guarantees€afforded€to€criminalÏdefendants;€and€the€petitioner's€interest€is€litigating€the€unreasonable€seizureÏclaim€is€accordingly€lesser.€ÌÌà àIn€summation,€after€carefully€balancing€the€legitimate€State€interests€ofÏprecluding€stale€claims€and€limiting€excessive€costs€with€the€petitioner's€interestÏin€litigating€this€particular€constitutional€claim,€we€conclude€that€the€State'sÏinterests€are€weightier.€€Because€the€strict€enforcement€of€the€limitations€periodÏdoes€not€serve€to€deprive€the€petitioner€of€a€reasonable€opportunity€to€litigate€hisÏclaim€under€òòBurfordóó,€€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€herebyÏreversed,€and€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€dismissed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJUSTICEÌÌÌConcur:€€€€ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌReid,€Birch,€and€White,€JJ.