WPC=  >W^B: SBfV>ޘ~|\>|tCR},bz5-ל.[k{I .f}h.H|\޸Kz*nW<@Q_j!}?'))99@H@9<ӤHFp"0yZUmCee)&78 -۱緌Ba^w[l f s}J!KBs\*MOR|gWE+ r.Q`ȌJ|˼+DpgΞl=}bxb$'erH6K?%B44w9bmIAmQŚJZB O#lMcJ \Uptv.YwWj#0=͓̿Ǽqt_2.ߐnb#\ % U @# 0c UN ^ X wd zh  4   m   | BN E 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0` 04 0 0C 0 0 0 0 0H 0 0 0! 0@H" 0" 0DV# 0# 0e$b-% 05% 0% 0& 0{' 07(c( Q*Q*Q*p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4p4 0 8888 B)9)9 0F9 D5 : D->: 0Kk:k: AS: ; 0; 0D< A<HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(I Z(Times New Roman ($ ..8d d 8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularvx-s  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.wpt9,.bk3|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  Rl$I}      4  ,I}Ԁ  _Asthemajoritynotes,SamplereceivedtheallegedlyexculpatorystatementsandreportsinSeptemberof  1993.Nearlysixteenmonthslater,inJanuaryof1995,hefiledhispostconvictionpetitionbasedonthisevidence.  Rl$I}      5  ,I}Ԁ  _ItakenoissuewiththemajoritysconclusionthestatuteoflimitationswastolledduringthetimethattheState  failedtodisclosetheallegedlyexculpatoryevidenceandreports.AsinanycaseinwhichtheStatewithholdsevidence t inviolationofBradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963),theweightoftheStatesinterestsinfinalityandinpreventing 8 staleclaimsisdiminishedvisvisthedefendantsinterestinpersonalliberty.However,oncehavingreceivedthis L evidencefromtheState,itwasincumbentuponthedefendanttothenasserthisrightsinatimelyandreasonablemanner.  Thelongerthedelayinassertingtheserights,themorethatthedefendantsinterestsinlibertymust,ofnecessity,  diminish. *+ (_2623  ..*D+J (_25   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *A+J (_24   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *>+J (_23  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *;+J (_22   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *8+J (_21    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *5+J (_20  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  *2+J (_19   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  */+J (_18    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  * (_1723  Ԁ*DJ (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *AJ (_15   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *>J (_14  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *;J (_13   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *8J (_12    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *5J (_11  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  *2J (_10   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  (/J &_9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  ( &_823  (DJ &_7   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  (#$  0  (AJ &_6   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  (>J &_5  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  - -(;J &_4   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  (8J &_3    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  (5J &_2  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  (2J &_1   L23   2( 4 <DL2  &/J $_    L23   2( 4 <DL2   Y Rl$I}      1  ,I}Ԁ  _SeeBurfordv.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992);Sealsv.State,23S.W.3d272(Tenn.2000);Williams  v.State,44S.W.3d464(Tenn.2001).  Rl$I}      3  ,I}Ԁ  _Workmanclearlydoesnotfollowfromourpreviousdecisionsaddressingdueprocesstolling.InBurford  v.State,845S.W.2d204(Tenn.1992),thedefendantcouldnotfilewithintheapplicablelimitationsperiodbecausehis t claim,duetonofaultofhisown,hadyettoaccrue.InSealsv.State,23S.W.3d272(Tenn.2000),thedefendantcould 8 notfilewithintheapplicablelimitationsperiod,duetonofaultofhisown,becauseofquestionsofmentalincompetence. L EveninWilliamsv.State,44S.W.3d464(Tenn.2001),thedefendantallegedthathecouldnotfileapetitionforrelief,  whenduetonofaultofhisown,helaboredforninemonthsundertheimpressionthathewasstillbeingrepresentedby  counselinadirectappealtothisCourt. H    AsthemajorityinWilliamsacknowledged,thedefendantinthatcasestillhadanadditionalthreemonthswithin  \ theoriginallimitationsperiodtofileapostconvictionpetitionafterhelearnedthathewasnolongerbeingrepresented   bycounsel.However,althoughtherecordcontainedsufficientcauseforconcern,itwasinsufficientlydevelopedto    enablethisCourttoruleuponwhetherthetimingoftheultimatefilingwasreasonable.Assuch,amajorityofthisCourt X   remandedthecaseforsuchadetermination.See44S.W.3dat471.  l    Importantly,however,evenanexpansivereadingofWilliamsrevealsthatitisnotatallsimilartothesituation  0  presentedinWorkman.NothinginWorkmansuggestedthatthetollingofthestatuteoflimitationsforanadditional   thirteenmonthswasreasonableunderanysetofcircumstancespresentedinthatcase.Indeed,evenassumingthat h  Workmanwassomehowgrantedanadditionaltwelvemonthstofileafterhisdiscoveryoftheallegedexculpatory ,|  evidence"apropositionwhichIdonot_grant"__nothing_Ԁinthatrecordsuggestedthathewasentitledtothebenefitofa @  extramonthbeyondthatperiodinwhichtoseekrelief.  Rl$I}      2  ,I}Ԁ  _Asthemajorityinthiscaseiscarefultonote,thereisno dueprocessstatuteoflimitationsforlaterarising  claims,asthetimelinessoffilingsinindividualcasesaredeterminedbywhatisreasonableunderthecircumstances. t However,supposingthattheoneyearlimitationsperiod,withoutmore,wouldbethepresumptiveouterlimitof 8 reasonablenessforawritoferrorcoramnobis,Istillmustquestiontheproprietyofgrantingahearinginthefaceofa L thirteenmonthdelay.Thisisespeciallythecasewhen,asinWorkman,noevidenceshowsthatthedefendantwas  preventedfromseekingreliefduetocircumstancesbeyondhisorhercontrol.(I2l$ !I}.8I}dXXd8         0  ,I}Ԁ d(3f$ !I}.8I}dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3f$ !I}.8I}dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !I}.8I}dd8     _   I}I}8AXXdd8@ I}INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#I}+#Ԉ &   ӀApril3,2002Session L XAXI}#I}XXA# MICHAELEUGENESAMPLEv.STATEOFTENNESSEE XAXI} J #I}XXA#XAXI} AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  J Ѐ#I}XXA#XAXI}CriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  6 @@No.P14252Hon.BernieWeinman,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W199901202SCR11_ԄPCFiledAugust2,_2002#I}XXAn#XAXI}__   AV) ` dE<h` A i   #I}XXA#  XAXI}WilliamM.Barker,concurringinpart,dissentinginpart.#I}XXA#Ԁ_ P ______XAXI}_____  Inthemajoritysopiniontoday,Ifindmuchwithwhichtoagree.Forexample,Iconcurin  themajoritysholdingthatourdecisioninWrightv.State,987S.W.2d26(Tenn.1999),didnot r createapersebaragainstalllaterarisingclaimsallegingsuppressionofexculpatoryevidence.I ^ alsoagreewiththemajoritythatadefendantmaybringsuchaclaim,notwithstandingtherunning J ofthestatuteoflimitationsunderthePostConvictionProcedureAct,solongas_anydelay_Ԁinfiling 6 _thepetition_Ԁ_forreliefis_Ԁreasonableunderallthecircumstances.Finally,Iagreethatthe "r _Middlebrooks_errorhereisharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubtunderthestandardrecognizedby ^ thisCourtinStatev.Howell,868S.W.2d238(Tenn.1993). J   However,Iwriteseparatelytorespectfullyexpressmydisapprovalwiththemajoritys " relianceonWorkmanv.State,41S.W.3d100(Tenn.2001),asauthorityforfindingthatthe   defendantinthiscasemadeatimelyfiling_forpostconvictionrelief._ԀIwasoneoftwomembersof !  thisCourtwhodissentedfromthedecisioninWorkman,andIregretthatithasbeenusedtodayas "! authoritytotollthepostconvictionstatuteoflimitationsforasixteenmonthperiod. #"   I.ShortcomingsofWorkmanv.State,41S.W.3d100(Tenn.2001)  Z% $    Ameretwodaysbeforehisscheduledexecution,PhilipWorkmanfiledamotiontoreopen 2'"& hispostconvictionpetitionunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection_40-30-217(a)(2)_Ԁ(1997), (n#' claimingthathepossessednewscientificevidencethatshowedhisactualinnocenceofthecrimefor  )Z$( whichhewassentencedtodeath.Healsofiledamotionseekingawritoferrorcoramnobis.Both )F%) thetrialcourtandtheCourtofCriminalAppealsdeniedthesepetitions,findingthathewasnot *2&* eligibletoreopenhispostconvictionpetitionunderthestatutesandthat_hismotionforthe_Ԁwritof +'+ errorcoramnobiswas_barredbythestatuteoflimitations. , (, _ -(-   Ontheveryafternoonofhisscheduledexecution,Workmanappealedthesefindingstothis  Court,andina32decisionremandingthecasetodeterminewhetherawritoferrorcoramnobis  shouldissue,Workmansimminentexecutionwasstayedwithlittlemorethananhourremaining.  Althoughthestatuteoflimitationsforawritoferrorcoramnobisisoneyearfromthedateofthe t defendantsconviction,seeTenn.CodeAnn.40-26-105;277103,theWorkmanmajorityheld ` thatconsiderationsofdueprocesstolled_that__limitations_Ԁ_periodto_Ԁallowthedefendanttohavea L  hearingontheissue.Thefactualbasisfordoingsowascited_onlyvaguely_Ԁ_as_Ԁ thecircumstances 8  ofthecase.SeeWorkman,41S.W.3dat101,10304. $ t   IdissentedfromthemajoritysdecisionbecauseIbelievedthen,asIdonow,thatthe  L  defendanthadbeenaffordedalloftheprocess"andmore"thattheConstitutioncommandedwas  8  duetohim.PriortoWorkman,thelynchpinofthedueprocesstollinganalysiswasthepresenceof $  circumstancesbeyondthedefendantscontrolwhichconspiredtopreventthedefendantfrommaking   atimelyassertionofrights.4 +#  1      ׀Afterall,onlywhenthedefendantisfacedwithsuchcircumstances   _does_Ԁhisorherlibertyinterestbecomesufficientweighty_to_ԀovercometheStatescountervailing   interestsin_preservingthefinality_Ԁ_ofjudgmentsand_Ԁ_preventing_Ԁ_stale_Ԁandgroundlessclaims.     However,whenadefendantsitsonhisorherrights,_these_Ԁ_governmentalinterests_Ԁ_become_ \ evenmorecompelling.TheWorkmanmajoritydidnotrecognizethisfact,and_itinstead_Ԁ_improperly H focused_Ԁitsattention_upon_Ԁthedefendantsdelayinobtainingtheevidence_ratherthanuponhis 4 lengthy__delayinbringing_Ԁtheevidencetotheattentionofacourt.SeeWorkman,41S.W.3dat103.  p _Thefactremains,however,thatWorkman_Ԁdelayedseekingawritoferrorcoramnobisforan  \ additionalthirteenmonthsafterhisreceiptof_this_Ԁevidence._Evengrantingforsakeofargumentthat H theoneyearstatuteoflimitationsdid_Ԁnotbeginrunninguntilheactually_cameintopossessionofthe_ 4 evidence,Workmansclaimwouldstillhavebeen_wellbeyond_Ԁ_this_Ԁ newfulllimitationsperiod.8 +#  2      __   Ѐ     Inessence,theCourtsdecisioninWorkmancanstandforthreepropositions:(1)thatdue  processconsiderationscantollastatuteoflimitationsevenwithout_evidence_Ԁsuggestingthatthe  defendantwaspreventedbycircumstancesbeyondhis_orhercontrol_Ԁfrombringingatimelyclaim;  (2)thatdueprocessconsiderationscantollastatuteoflimitationsevenwhenthedelayinseeking l reliefistheresultofatacticaldecision"theoverwhelmingindicationfromtherecordwasthat X  Workmansdelayinseekingreliefwasatacticaldecisiontodelayhisexecution;and(3)thatdue D! processconsiderations_cantollsuccessive statute__s_Ԁof_limitations,soastopermita_Ԁdefendantas 0"  manyasthreebitesatthepostconvictionapple"Workmanwaspermittedahearingeighteenyears #l! aftertheoriginalstatuteoflimitationshadrunandafterhis newfullstatuteoflimitations,  beginningfromthediscoveryoftheallegedexculpatoryevidence,hadrunaswell.These  propositionshavenobasis_whatsoever_Ԁinourpriordecisions,_5 +#  3      _Ԁandwiththem,theCourt_ushered_Ԁin  dangerousandominousconceptsthatmayultimatelyrenderanullityallstatutesoflimitationsfor t postconvictionremedies. `   Ourneweraofdueprocesstollingjurisprudenceisdisconcertingprincipallybecauseitis 8  withoutidentifiablelimitsorboundaries.Howisanycourttoknowwhendueprocesscommands $ t thatastatuteoflimitationsbetolledafterourholdinginWorkman?Priortotoday,onecouldhave  ` reasonablysupposedthatWorkmanwasmerelyanaberrationinthelaw,withitsresultcompelled  L  bythefactthatthedefendantwasalreadyinthechamberwhenthestayofexecutionwasissued.  8  However,by_relyingupon__Workman_Ԁtoday,theCourthasunderminedanysuch_supposition,_Ԁand_it $  has_Ԁinsteadbreathedfulllifeinto_adecision_Ԁ_thatweshouldproperlyputasunder.   _  Iamatalosstoknowwherethisdueprocesstollingpathwillend,butIsuspectthatitwill   end,ifatall,onlyaftermiringthelawinastateofunmitigatedturmoil.Aswecanalreadyseefrom   aquickreviewofthecasesfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals,theintermediatecourtisunclearas p tohowtoapplyWorkmanorwhatthelimitsofthatcasemaybe.Indeed,giventhevaguenessofthe \ factorssupportingitsholding,_Ibelieve__that_Ԁattemptingaconsistentapplicationofdueprocesstolling H afterWorkmanis_likelytobelessfruitfulthananswering_Ԁanyoneoftheimponderablesofferedin 4 WilliamBlakestimelesspoem, The_Tyger_.  p   Attheendoftheday,_our_ԀcontinuedrelianceonWorkmanasauthorityforanyproposition H onlyservestofurthercompoundourpreviouserror.Plainlystated,Workmanwasahastily 4 considereddecision"onebroughtonbythepressuresofextraordinarycircumstances"anditcannot    bejustifiedasalogicalornaturalprogressionofpriorlaw.Iwouldthereforepreferthatweadmit   ouranalyticalmistakesinWorkmanandeitheroverrulethatdecisionorconsignitsfatetotherealm  ___of_Ԁlegaloblivion.     II.ApplicationofWorkmantothisCase  t 2  Inthecasebeforeustoday,weareagainfacedwiththequestionofwhetherdueprocess L  considerationsallowadefendanttolate_Ԅ__file_Ԁapostconvictionpetitionaftercomingintopossession 8  of_alleged_Ԁexculpatoryevidence.Themajorityconcludes,afterappropriatelydistinguishingWright, $ t thatadefendantmaydoso,providedthatanydelayinbringingthepetitionisreasonableunderthe  ` circumstances.AsIstatedearlier,I_fullyconcurwith__this_Ԁproposition.However,themajoritythen  L  concludesthatthesixteenmonthdelayinthiscaseisreasonableunderthecircumstances,ifonly  8  becausethistimeperiod isnotsubstantiallydifferentthantheperiodinWorkman. +#  4      ׀_Itiswiththis $  conclusionthatthemajorityandImustpartways.   _  Althoughthemajorityiscorrectthatthiscaseisnot substantiallydifferentfromWorkman,   thisfactshouldbeabasisfordenyingthedefendantspetition,notforallowingittoproceed.Just   asthedefendantinWorkmanunreasonablysatonhisrightsasatacticaldecisiontodelayhis p execution,sotoohasthedefendantinthiscasebeenguiltyofanunreasonabledelayinassertinghis \ rights.Indeed,likeWorkman,thedefendanthere_cameinto_Ԁpossessionofevidencethathebelieved H warrantedanewtrial,_buthedid_Ԁnotseematallinterestedinseekingrelief.Hedidnot,forexample, 4 fileapetition_forreliefwithin_Ԁaweek,withinamonth,orevenwithinafullyearof_his_Ԁdiscovery_of  p thisevidence._ԀInstead,hewaitednearlyayearandahalftobringthisevidencetotheattentionof  \ _acourt._Ԁ_Again,evenassuming,asIdidinWorkman,thatthisdefendantwassomehowgrantedan H additionaltwelvemonthsafterhisdiscoveryoftheallegedexculpatoryevidencetofileapetitionfor 4 relief,nothingheresuggeststhatheisentitledtoanextrafourmonthsbeyondthatperiodinwhich   tofile.Becauseofthisconsiderableandlengthydelay,I_Ԁdonotagreethat_thisdefendantsliberty   interestsaresoweightythat dueprocessconsiderations_Ԁ_mustnowinterveneto_Ԁ_assist__himinhis  questforanewhearing._ +#  5      ׀__    Therefore,contrarytothemajoritysholding,Ifindnobasisforholdingthata___sixteenmonth_ l delay_inseekingreliefis_Ԁreasonableunderthecircumstancesofthiscase.Itdoesnotappearthatthe X  defendantwaspreventedfromfilinghispetition_forpostconvictionreliefdue_Ԁtoanycircumstances D! beyondhiscontrol;rather,itappearsthathewasmerelydilatoryinassertinghisrights"afactwhich 0"  doesnotproperlyentitlehimtodueprocesstollingconsiderations.Intheend,themajoritys  relianceonWorkmanasauthorityforitsholdingtodayisdisheartening,aswehavenow_takena  second"butquitecritical"stepinpermitting dueprocessconsiderationstoerasethesignificance  ofstatutesoflimitationsinthepostconvictioncontext. t   Forthesereasons,IrespectfullydissentfromtheCourtsholdingthatDefendantSamples L  filingforpostconvictionreliefistimely. 8     `     h     ____________________________________ $     `     h     WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE