WPC% \> {Bǵh-WMf=|hχօ na޾eݱ*ۮtUGGmduEz7ʺ$ ^L]&7 nx}jG>UǵB7;QɑikWp/tgQWXGϻɁ>@7Hc"LG}z:<ܭzHm(Gy^T[_kj"DHC Ftu"9bh-$q H0I] Z['q5^S Oc_ġ5JNϽnF8=0b41؏!Sr){`|(,X(-P7 {&ʹ%g3hB տ𴣸~Ǫ5=/jMKGm揫VKb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz z  W   0DN 1u 72dd 0cEU@ 00;;;;;;kkkkkkkkkkkkkkbs 0Y{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ 0N 0"""" B   0* D3 D- 0K.. ASy 0 0D6 AzHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0px-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular9,bk1( 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.wpt3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (nM Z(Times New Roman 0.Normal - -64Hyperlink    (O$(|G2Q$ !.8CUdXXd8         0  XX d(|3T$ !.8CUdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3T$ !.8CUdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8CUdd8     _CU=CUdd=@  CUCUXtCUINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#CUXt#CUCUԈ &   April3,2002Session L #CUCU#XXCU #CUXXA#XtCUMICHAELEUGENESAMPLE,etal.v.STATEOFTENNESSEE#CUXt#XXCU  J @@ AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  Z ЀCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  F @@No.P14252Bernie_Weinman_,Judge  2 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199901202SCR11PCFiledAugust2,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A   #XXXX##CUXX#   XX.CUFrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,concurring.      Ifullyconcurinthemajoritydecisionbutfeelcompelledtowriteseparatelytorespondto  thedissentscharacterizationofthemajoritysdecisioninStatev.Workman,41S.W.3d100  (Tenn.2001),asa hastilyconsidereddecision!onebroughtonbythepressuresof p extraordinarycircumstances!anditcannotbejustifiedasalogicalornaturalprogressionofthe \ law.Tothecontrary,fromevenacursoryreadingitisclearthatthemajoritydecisionin H Workmanresultedfromaprincipledapplicationofestablishedlawtothefactsofaparticular 4 case.ThedissentsclaimthatthemajorityopinioninWorkmanisnotfoundedinlogicorprior  p lawiseasilydispelledbysimplyconsideringthelanguageoftheopinionitself,ratherthanthe  \ dissentshyperbole.InconcludingthatconsiderationofWorkmanspetitionforawritoferror H coram_nobis_Ԁwasnotforeclosedbythestatuteoflimitations,themajoritymeticulouslyapplied 4 thedueprocessbalancingtestoutlinedinBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992),Seals   v.State,23S.W.3d272(Tenn.2000),andWilliamsv.State,44S.W.3d464(Tenn.2001).Inso   holding,westatedasfollows:   8  AsinBurford,todeterminewhetherdueprocessrequirestollinginthiscase,we "! mustconsiderthegovernmentalinterestsinvolvedandtheprivateinterests l#" affectedbytheofficialaction.Inthiscase,asinBurford,thegovernmental X$# interestinassertingthestatuteoflimitationsisthepreventionofstaleand D% $ groundlessclaims.Theprivateinterestinvolvedhereisthepetitioners 0&!% opportunitytohaveahearingonthegroundsofnewlydiscoveredevidencewhich 'l"& mayhaveresultedinadifferentverdictifheardbythejuryattrial.Ifthe (X#' proceduraltimebarisapplied,Workmanwillbeputtodeathwithoutbeinggiven (D$( anyopportunitytohavethemeritsofhisclaimevaluatedbyacourtofthisState.)0%)   8   ` Weighingthesecompetinginterestsinthecontextofthiscase,wehaveno +'+ hesitationinconcludingthatdueprocessprecludesapplicationofthestatuteof ,', limitationstobarconsiderationofthewritoferrorcoram_nobis_Ԁinthiscase. -(- Workmansinterestinobtainingahearingtopresentnewlydiscoveredevidence  thatmayestablishactualinnocenceofacapitaloffensefaroutweighsany  governmentalinterestinpreventingthelitigationofstaleclaims.Workmanhas  raisedseriousquestionsregardingwhetherhefiredtheshotthatkilledMemphis t PoliceLieutenantRonaldOliver.Ifhedidnotfirethatshot,heisnotguiltyofthe ` crimeforwhichheisscheduledtobeputtodeath.Theseclaimsarebasedupon L  evidenceobtainedfromtheShelbyCountyMedicalExaminersOfficelongafter 8  theconclusionofthestatepostconvictionproceedings.Thedefendantsdelayin $ t obtainingthisevidenceisnotattributabletothefaultofWorkmanorhis  ` attorneys.Infact,Workmanpreviouslyhadfiledasubpoenarequestinganxray  L  ofthistype,butitwasnotprovided.NocourtinthisStatehasactuallyhelda  8  hearingtofullyevaluatethestrengthoftheseclaims.Undersuchcircumstances, $  Workmansinterestinobtainingahearingontheseclaimsclearlyoutweighsthe   governmentalinterestembodiedinthestatuteoflimitations.Accordingly,due   processprecludessummarydismissalofthisclaimbaseduponastatutorytime   bar.    Id.at103.WeconsideredthatWorkmanfiledthepetitioninstatecourtthirteenmonthsafter \ discoveryoftheevidence,butconcludedthatBurfordanditsprogenyclearlymandatethata H petitionerbeaffordedareasonableopportunityaftertheexpirationofthelimitationsperiodto 4 presentclaimsinameaningfultimeandmanner.Underthecircumstancesofthecase,weheld  p thatthirteenmonthswasnotanunreasonabledelay,particularlyinlightofthetwelvemonth  \ coram_nobis_Ԁstatuteoflimitationsand themagnitudeandgravityofthedeathpenalty.Id.at H 103104.Insum,themajorityopinioninWorkmanaccuratelyappliedsettledlawinaffording 4 thepetitionerdueprocessrelieffromthecoram_nobis_Ԁstatuteoflimitations.     ThedissentingopinioncriticizesthemajorityinWorkmanandapparentlywouldhave  barredtheclaimbecauseitwasbroughtthirteen,ratherthantwelve,monthsaftertheevidence  wasdiscovered.Inmyview,thedissentingjusticespositionthattheclaimshouldhavebeen  barredbecauseitwasbroughtonemonthbeyondthetimeinitiallyaffordedisimpossibleto l reconcilewithBurfordandWilliams,decisionswithwhichthedissentprofessestoagree.The X  petitionerinBurfordfailedtotimelyfilehisclaimeventhoughninemonthsremainedonthe D! governingstatuteoflimitationswhenhediscoveredthegroundsforhisclaim.Notwithstanding 0"  theremainingtimeonthestatute,thisCourtheldthatdueprocessentitledhimtoadditionaltime. #l! Likewise,inWilliams,adecisionauthoredbythedissentingjustice,thepetitionerfailedto $X" timelyfilehisclaimeventhoughatleastthreemonthsremainedonthegoverningstatuteof $D # limitations.Nevertheless,amajorityofthisCourtheldthatdueprocesstolledthestatuteof %0!$ limitationsdespitestatutoryprovisionsstatingthatthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitations &"% shouldnotbetolledforanyreason.GiventhedecisionsinBurfordandWilliams,Iam '#& bewilderedbythedissentingjusticesinitialandcontinuing disapprovalofthemajority (#' decisioninWorkman.UnlikethepetitionersinBurfordandWilliams,thepetitionerin )$( Workmanhadnotimeremainingunderthegoverningstatuteoflimitationsandnoopportunity, |*%) reasonableorotherwise,tobringhisclaimwithinthestatuteoflimitations. h+&* Ї  ThedissentmakesmuchofthefactthatWorkmanspetitionwasfiledinstatecourt  shortlybeforehisscheduledexecutionandchargesthatthemajoritydecisionwasinfluencedby  thetimingofthefiling.Thischargehasabsolutelynobasisinfact.Tothecontrary,lastminute  filingsaredisfavored.Nevertheless,surelythedissentwouldagreethatthisCourtshouldnot t refusetoapplyexistingandestablishedlawmerelybecauseaclaimisfiledshortlybeforea ` scheduledexecution.Indeed,sucharulewouldbearbitraryandtheultimateexultationofform L  oversubstance. 8    AsinWorkman,themajoritydecisioninthiscaseaccuratelyappliesexistingand  ` establishedlaw.Accordingly,Iconcurwiththemajoritydecision.  L    0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#______________________________________ (#(#    ` 0 0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#FrankF.Drowota,III,ChiefJustice