WPC5 } ۅnLBiۘЍ@VM: ҠZ@dRzɥbWXu2OIQfT}N;B bHkp6jQzû M{Hpod!4p}@,屻:^E~ގm{ 9k.hAEo!q]L:d?iW/z+T 4oKش8]I|G!0uy1%T6}[ pe[ "?#-鐻˚vߥ28R@7E| ǻ+=T[6d 7ϑ<<Ww hTwL4u֜C=g3!RRM.*jxH` `@E ` 8ttxP H tߛZ `     h      p  FORPUBLICATION  R J  `     h      p Filed:February1,1999  $  CHARLESWALTONWRIGHT,    )    `     h     ) `  Appellant, h     ) p DAVIDSONCRIMINAL    `     h     ) p     `     h     )Vs.    h     ) p HON.WALTERC.KURTZ, tl Ѐ) p   JUDGE ZR  `     h     )STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     ) &  `     h     ) ` Appellee. h     ) p No.01S019709CR00196   `     h      p  `     h      VN  ForAppellant: 󀀀 h   p ForAppellee:  x   (#  < 4  `     h      p  DonaldE.Dawson   h      p JohnKnoxWalkup "  МPostConvictionDefender h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter " Nashville,Tennessee `     h      p MichaelE.Moore `     h      p SolicitorGeneral   `     h      p AmyL.Tarkington ~'v $  `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral̀    h      p Nashville,Tennessee J)B"&    `     h      p AtTrial: ,$)  `     h      p VictorS.Johnson `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h      p JohnZimmerman `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorney `     h      p Nashville,Tennessee X X  @)DOPINION # X X ̥#Ԉ 5.4 COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSAFFIRMED. h      p     ANDERSON,C.J.  ;4:  XZXX X 7 Z XXdXXd7   ` Wegrantedthisappealtodeterminewhethertheappellantsdueprocessrights  wereviolatedwhenthelowercourtsdismissedhispostconvictionpetitionastimebarredbythethreeyearstatuteoflimitationssincetheassertedviolationofBradyv.   Maryland,373U.S.83,83S.Ct.1194,10L.Ed.2d215(1963),didnotariseuntilafter   expirationofthethreeyearstatuteoflimitations. ` TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthetrialcourtsdismissalofthepetitionafterconcludingthattheappellantsinterestinassertingandlitigatingtheissuedidnotoutweightheStatesinterestinpreservingfinaljudgmentsandpreventingthelitigationofstaleclaims. ` Weconcludethattheexculpatoryevidenceissuewasa laterarisingclaiminthatitdidnotariseuntilafterthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitationbegantorun.Wefurtherconclude,however,thattheappellantsinterestinlitigatingthelaterarisingclaimatthisstageoftheproceedingsdidnotoutweightheStatesinterestinpreservingfinaljudgmentsandpreventingthelitigationofstaleclaims.WethereforeaffirmtheCourtofCriminalAppealsjudgment.@hh*D BACKGROUND *#&  ` InAprilof1985,theappellant,CharlesWaltonWright,wasconvictedoftwo ,%( countsofpremeditatedfirstdegreemurder.Accordingtotheevidenceattrial,Wrightshotandkilledtwovictims,GeraldMitchellandDouglasAlexander,duringthecourseofadrugtransaction.HewassentencedtolifeimprisonmentforthekillingofMitchellandtodeathbyelectrocutionforthekillingofAlexander.TheconvictionsandsentenceswereaffirmedbythisCourtondirectappeal.Statev.Wright,756S.W.2d669(Tenn. 5.2 1988),cert.denied,488U.S.1034,109S.Ct.848,102L.Ed.2d979(1989).The 704 CourtdeniedWrightspetitionforrehearingonAugust29,1988. 926 Ї ` InMayof1989,Wrightfiledhisfirstpetitionforpostconvictionrelief,whichwasdeniedbythetrialcourtafteranevidentiaryhearing.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmed.Wrightv.State,No.01C019105CR00149(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,   Apr.7,1994).ThisCourtdeniedWrightsapplicationforpermissiontoappealonSeptember12,1994,andtheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsubsequentlydeniedWrightspetitionforcertiorari,513U.S.1163,115S.Ct.1129,130L.Ed.2d1091(1995).  ` WrightfiledthepresentpostconvictionpetitiononJanuary27,1995,GGGG #  1      כalleging,in h` part,thattheprosecutionhadviolatedhisstateandfederalrightstodueprocessbywithholdingexculpatoryevidenceinviolationofBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83,83S.  Ct.1194,10L.Ed.2d215(1963). Amongotherthings,Wrightclaimedtheprosecution  suppressedevidencedemonstratingthathehadamentalillness;thathedidnotkillAlexander;thatotherpersonswereatthesceneofthekilling;thataheatedargumenthadoccurredatthescene;thatMitchellsgirlfriendhadcommittedthekillingsafterdiscoveringthatMitchellandAlexanderwerehomosexuallovers;thatMitchellhada drugconnectioninNashville;andthatthevictimswereengagedindrugtraffickingwithtwootherindividualsatthetimeoftheshooting. ` Althoughthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsthenapplicabletopostconvictionsuitshadexpiredthreeyearsafterhisconvictionbecamefinal,seeTenn.CodeAnn. *#( 4030102(1990),FI"IIIFFF #  2      ׀Wrightarguedthattheexculpatoryevidenceissuedidnotarise ,%* untilthedecisioninCapitalCaseResourceCenterv.Woodall,No.01A019104CH .',  00150(Tenn.App.,Nashville,Jan.29,1992).Inthatcase,theMiddleSectionofthe \0T). CourtofAppealsheldthatpoliceinvestigativefilesconcerningacaseundercollateralattackwerenotexemptfromdisclosureundertheTennesseePublicRecordsLaw.  ` Thetrialcourtdismissedthepetitionwithoutahearingbecauseitwasfiledafterthethreeyearstatuteoflimitations.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsagreedthatthegroundsfortheexculpatoryevidencewerenotavailableuntilthedecisioninWoodallwasreleasedonJanuary29,1992,yetheldthat   thesuitwasproperlydismissedbecauseWrightsinterestinhavingtheissuehearddidnotoutweightheStatesinterestinpreservingfinaljudgmentsandpreventingthelitigationofstaleclaims.WegrantedWrightsapplicationforpermissiontoappealandnowaffirm.@JJ+D ANALYSIS    ` AtthetimeWrightfiledthispostconvictionsuitinJanuaryof1995,I!III #  3      כthePost d\ ConvictionProcedureActprovided:8 `  ` (#` (# 8 ` [a]prisonerincustodyundersentenceofacourtofthisstatemustpetitionforpostconvictionreliefunderthischapterwithinthree(3)yearsofthe #  dateofthefinalactionofthehigheststateappellatecourttowhichanappealistakenorconsiderationofsuchpetitionshallbebarred.%"` (#` (# Tenn.CodeAnn.4030102(emphasisadded). ` Applyingthisstatutetothiscase,thethreeyearperiodbegantorunwhenthisCourtdeniedWrightspetitionforrehearingofhisdirectappealonAugust12,1988;thus,WrightspetitionfiledinJanuaryof1995wasmorethanthreeyearsaftertheexpirationofthestatuteoflimitations.Wright,however,citingBurfordv.State,845 B1:*/  S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992),arguesthatsincetheexculpatoryevidenceclaimwas 3,1 unavailableuntilthedecisioninWoodall,hiscasefallswithinanexceptiontothethree  yearlimitationsperiod.  ` InBurford,thepetitionerspostconvictionsuitinTrousdaleCountychallenging l d hissentencingasapersistentoffenderwasfiledafterthestatuteoflimitations;heargued,however,thathecouldnotraisetheissueuntilpriorconvictionssustainedinWilsonCounty,whichhadbeenusedtoenhancehissentenceinTrousdaleCounty,weresetasideinaseparatepostconvictionsuit.Werecognizedthattheapplicationofthestatuteoflimitationsmustcomportwithdueprocess:8 ` [B]eforeastatemayterminateaclaimforfailuretocomplywithproceduralrequirementssuchasstatutesoflimitations,dueprocessrequiresthatpotentiallitigantsbeprovidedanopportunityforthepresentationofclaimsatameaningfultimeandinameaningfulmanner.Thequestion,thenis whetherastatespolicyreflectedinthestatuteaffordsafairandreasonableopportunityfor...bringing...suit.Inotherwords,thetestiswhetherthetimeperiodprovidesanapplicantareasonableopportunitytohavetheclaimedissueheardanddetermined. ` (#` (# Id.at208(citationsomitted).Moreover,giventheunusualproceduralfactsconfronting ! thepetitioner,weconcludedthat underthecircumstancesofaparticularcase,applicationofthestatute[did]notaffordareasonableopportunitytolitigateanissue.Id.󀀀 z&r# ̀ ` InalatercaseweclarifiedBurfordbyrecognizingthat dueprocessprohibitsthe * #' strictapplicationofthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitationstobarapetitionersclaimwhenthegroundsforrelief,whetherlegalorfactual,ariseafter...thepointatwhich -&+ thelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun.Sandsv.State,903S.W.2d v/n(- 297,301(Tenn.1995)(emphasisadded).Weestablishedthefollowingframework:8 ` (1)determinewhenthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavebeguntorun;(2)determinewhetherthegroundsforreliefactuallyaroseafterthelimitationsperiodwouldnormallyhavecommenced;and(3)ifthegroundsare laterarising,determineif,underthefactsofthecase,astrictapplicationofthelimitationsperiodwouldeffectivelydenythepetitionerareasonableopportunitytopresenttheclaim. ` (#` (#  >:639 ЇId.Todeterminewhetherapetitionerwasdeniedareasonableopportunitytopresenta  claim,acourtmustbalancethelibertyinterestincollaterallyattackingtheconstitutionalviolationsoccurringduringtheconvictionprocessagainsttheStateslegitimateinterestinpreventingthelitigationofstaleandfraudulentclaims.Id.;seealsoCaldwellv. l d State,917S.W.2d662XXX X(Tenn.1996)# XXXX7#Ԁ(alsoapplyingBurfordandSandsanalysis). 80  ` WeemployedthistypeofbalancinganalysisinBurford.Withrespecttothe   Statesinterest,weobservedthattherewasnothingstaleorfraudulentaboutthepetitionersclaim,thattherewasnodifficultywiththeavailabilityofwitnessesorthememoriesofwitnesses,andthattherewasnoproblemwithrespecttoagroundlessclaimgeneratingexcessivecosts.Wefurtherstressed thatthepetitionerha[d]avalidclaimtohavehissentencereduced,andallthe[postconviction]courtwillhavetodoisexaminetherecordofthe...proceedings.845S.W.2dat209.Finallywestressedthesignificantlibertyinterestatstaketothepetitioner:8 `  ` (#` (# 8 ` [A]pplicationofthestatute...willdeny[Burford]ofafundamentalright.Ifconsiderationofthepetitionisbarred,Burfordwillbeforcedtoserveapersistentoffendersentencethatwasenhancedbypreviousconvictionsthatnolongerstand.Asaresult,BurfordwillbeforcedtoserveanexcessivesentenceinviolationofhisrightsundertheEighthAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution,andArticleI,16oftheTennesseeConstitution,which,bydefinition,arefundamentalrightsentitledtoheightenedprotection. ` (#` (# Id.Thus,afterconcludingthatBurfordsinterestinraisingandlitigatingtheissue * #' outweighedtheStatesinterest,weheldthatapplicationofthestatuteoflimitationstobarBurfordspetitionviolateddueprocess.Id.at20910. -&+  ` Bycontrast,ina1996case,thepetitionerinCaldwellfiledapostconviction B1:*/  petitioninwhichhechallengedanunlawfularrest.I%III #  4      כAfterconcludingthatCaldwells 3,1 claimwasa laterarisingissue,weturnedtothebalancingtestandcontrastedtheStatesinterestwiththatinBurford:   8 ` [I]tisbeyondquestionthattheStateinterestsherearemuchstrongerthaninBurford.Withrespecttotheinterestinpreventingthelitigationof l d staleclaims,wenotethattheeventsatissuehereoccurredalmostfifteenyearsago.Becausetheofficersinvolvedwilllikelybecalledtotestifyregardingthearrestandtheensuingevents,thereisarealdangerthattheirmemorieswillhavefadedtosuchadegreeastomakereconstructingtheeventsdifficultorimpossible.Moreover,thereisthepossibilitythattheofficersmaynotevenbeavailabletotestify,anotherconcernvoicedinBurford.Thus,allthedangersinherentinthelitigation   ofstaleclaimswhichtheStatehasalegitimateinterestinpreventingappeartobepresenthere.z ` (#` (# 917S.W.2dat666(emphasisadded).WealsofoundthatthenatureoftherightassertedinCaldwell󀄄therighttosuppressevidencederivedfromanunlawfularrest  differedsignificantlyfromtherighttobefreefromanexcessivesentenceassertedinBurford:  8 ` TherightatissueinBurfordisapersonaltrialrightofadefendantwhich d\ goesdirectlytothejusticeorintegrityoftheconvictionorsentence.On JB theotherhand,the righttoexcludeevidencegatheredasaresultofanunreasonableseizure,basedasitisontherationaleofdeterringpolicemisconduct,isnotapersonaltrialright.Andaviolationoftheconstitutionalguarantees,ifproven,doesnotnecessarilyresultinareversaloftheconviction. ` (#` (# 917S.W.2dat667.Accordingly,weconcludedthatapplicationofthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsdidnotdenyCaldwellareasonableopportunitytopresenttheϜpretextualarrestissue. ` Applyingthisframeworktothepresentcase,wefindthatthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationsbegantorunwhenthisCourtaffirmedWrightsconvictionandsentenceanddeniedhispetitionforrehearingonAugust29,1988.TheCourtofAppealsdecisioninWoodall,holdingthatpoliceinvestigativefileswerenotexemptfrom 3,1 disclosureunderthePublicRecordsLaw,wasreleasedonJanuary29,1992.Accordingly,itappearsthattheexculpatoryevidenceissuewas,infact,laterarising,undertheanalysisinSandsandCaldwell. r8j17  >:639  ` Thecriticalinquiryiswhether,underthefactsofthiscase,applicationofthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationseffectivelydeniedWrighta reasonableopportunitytoraisethisissue.??񛀁Inmakingthisinquiry,wemustbalanceWrightsinterestincollaterallychallenginghisconvictionbyraisingthisconstitutionalissueagainsttheStateslegitimateinterestinpreservingthefinalityofjudgmentsandpreventingthelitigationofstaleandfraudulentclaims.I(II#I #  5      כ    ` WeinitiallyobservethattherightassertedbyWrightthedenialofdueprocessresultingfromtheprosecutionssuppressionofexculpatoryevidenceisapersonaltrialrightdirectlyrelatingtothejusticeorintegrityoftheconvictionandsentence.Brady,373U.S.at87,83S.Ct.at1197;Statev.Spurlock,874S.W.2d602,60910  (Tenn.Crim.App.1993).Itis,therefore,moresimilartothelibertyinterestassertedinBurfordthantheinterestinCaldwell.   ` Theothersideofthescale,however,weighsheavilyinfavorofthelegitimateinterestsoftheState.ThepostconvictionsuitfiledbyWrightwasfiledtenyearsafterthecommissionoftheoffense;nearlysixandonehalfyearsafterWrightsconvictionbecamefinal;threeandonehalfyearsafterthethreeyearpostconvictionstatuteoflimitationsexpired;andnearlythreeyearsaftertheCourtofAppealsdecidedinWoodallthatpoliceinvestigativefileswerenotexemptfromthePublicRecordsAct. ,)$"&  ` AsinCaldwell,thispassageoftimeisdirectlyrelatedtothemannerandmeans ,%* oflitigatingWrightsissue.Theavailabilityofcriticalwitnessesandtheirabilitytorecallandrelatedetailsastotheallegedsuppressionofexculpatoryevidenceandthefactsof \0T). thisoffenseareimmediateandsignificantconcerns.Wrightsmereallegationthattheprosecutionsuppressedexculpatoryevidencedoesnotwarrantrelief.Instead,Wrightmustestablishthatfavorableevidenceexisted,thatitwasmaterialtothedefense,andthatitwas,infact,suppressedbytheprosecution.Accordingly,asinCaldwell,raising l d thisissueatthisstageoftheproceedings,wouldrequireextensive,possiblyexpensivelitigation.Cf.,Burford,847S.W.2dat209(raisingtheissuerequirestrialjudgeto   simplyexaminetherecordoftheproceedings). ` WrightarguesthatthethreeyearstatuteoflimitationscontainedintheformerPostConvictionActshouldbeappliedtolaterarisingissues.See,e.g.,Burford,847 4, S.W.2dat210(Daughtrey,J.,concurring).TheState,ontheotherhand,assertingthatWrightdidnotactpromptlyinraisingthisissueoncehavingthebenefitofthedecisioninWoodall,invitestheCourttoapplyaoneyearstatuteoflimitationstoalllaterarising  claims.Weagreethatthetimelinessofraisingalaterarisingissueisarelevantfactor;however,asinpriorcases,wedeclinetoapplyabrightlineperiodoftimeinwhichtoraiselaterarisingissuesbeitoneyearorthree.Instead,ourrulerequiresthateachcasebeexaminedundertheanalysissetforthaboveandinlightofthespecificfactsofthecase.I+II'I #  6       %"  ` Accordingly,weconcludethatthepostconvictionsuitwasproperlydismissed,andweaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.@*D CONCLUSION  .',  ` Weconcludethatthepetitionersissueregardingthesuppressionofexculpatoryevidenceisalaterarisingclaim.Wefurtherconclude,however,thatthepetitionerwasnotdeniedareasonableopportunitytohavetheissueheardandlitigated.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals. 5.4 Ї ` Costsofappealareassessedagainsttheappellant,CharlesWaltonWright,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. `     h     ____________________________________ `     h     RILEYANDERSON,CHIEFJUSTICE̜ @Panel@BAcoABCCONCURC:    МDDDrowota,Birch,andHolder,JJ.Barker,J.,notparticipating̜O,O