### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs D ec em be r 15, 200 4 WILLIE TOM EN SLEY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty

No. 85-W-584 Walt er K urtz, Judge

No. M2003- 02831-CCA -R3-P C - F iled May 11, 2005 The pe titioner appea ls from the dismiss al of his Post-Conviction D NA Ana ly sis Petit ion. Dismiss al followed a n unfavor able r esult for the pet i t i o n er afte r DNAanaly sis of a portion of the e vidence
. Upon re view, we aff

irm the dismissal. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed J OHN E VE R E TT W I L L I AMS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J E R R Y L. S MI TH and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J J ., joined. Dwig ht E. Scott, Nashville, Tennesse e, for the appe llant, Wi llie Tom Ensley
. Paul G . Su mme rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; Se th P . K e stn e r, As sis ta nt A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Victor S. (Torry ) Johns on, I I I , District Attorney Gene ral; and John Zimmerman, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee .

OP IN ION The orig in of this case w as the petitioner’s convictions in 1986, of first deg ree murder and
a g g r a v a t e d r ap e . T h e p e t i t i o n e r r e c e i v e d c o n s e c u t i v e s e n t e n c e s o f l i f e a n d 2 7
. 5 ye ar s , r e s p e c t i v e l y. This Court affirme d on direc t appea l. See Will ie Tom Ensley , No. 86-65-II I , 1987 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 2213 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Na shville, Apr. 7, 1987). Application for pe rmission to appeal was de nied by

our supre me court on J une 29, 1987. L ater , the petitioner filed his fir st petition for post-conviction re lief, alleg ing ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied-2-

relief , and this Court affirme d on direc t appea l. See W illie Tom Ensley v. State, No. 01C01-9010- C C -0 0 2 4 6 , 1 9 91 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 131 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Na shville, Feb. 26, 1991)
. Application for pe rmission to appeal to the supreme court was denied on J une 17, 1991. I n 2000, the petitioner filed a p et i t ion for writ of habea s corpus a lleg ing that eac h of the indictments was insufficient. The post-convicti o n court denied relief , and this Court affirme d. See Willi e Tom Ensley v. Howar d Carlton, Warden, et al., No. E2002-00878-CCA-R3-PC, 2002 Tenn. Crim. App. LEX I S 88 0 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. , at K no xvill e , Oc t. 21, 20 02 ). On F e br ua ry 18 , 2 00 3, ou r s up re me
c ou rt de nie d a pp lic a tio n f

or pe rm iss ionto a

pp e a l.
On May 6, 2002, the petitioner filed a second post-c onviction pet i t ion, seeking a DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) analy sis of certain evidenc e under the Post-Conviction DNA Analy sis Act of 2001. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-301 et . s eq. This petition was summarily dismiss ed, and the petitioner appe aled. See Wil lie Tom Ensley v. State, No. M 2002-01609-CCA-R3-PC, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 335 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Na shville, Apr. 11, 2003). This Court rever sed and
rema nded for

a dete rmination as to whether the four fac tors of Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ction 40-30-305 we re me t and, if so, orde red a DNA analy sis. On rema nd, the trial court entere d an orde r providing that a blood sample from the petit ioner be taken and submitt ed to the TBI lab “with the
e xistin g e vid e nc e .” Th e or de r f urthe r r e qu ir e d th a t r e su lts of theDN A a na ly sis be re po rt e d w ith in six ty day s.T he T B I report st at ed, “T he probabi l i t y o f an unr el at ed i ndi vi dual havi ng t he s ame D N A prof i l e f r om ei t her 1 the A fric a n -A m e ric a n , C a u c a sia n , S o u the ast ern H i spanic, or So ut hwest ern H i spanic p o p u la tio n s e x c e e d the c u rr e n t wo rld p o p u la tio n .”

T h e i n c on c l u s i v e s w a b o f s pe r m f r a c t i on r e n de r e d a pr ob a bi l i t y of a n u n r e l a t e d i n di v i du a l h a v i n g t h e s a me 2 D N A pr of

i l e f r om t he f o l l o wi n g popu l at i on g r ou ps a s : Af r i ca n - Amer i ca n , on e i n 4577; Cau ca s i an , on e i n 967; So ut heast ern H i spanic, one i n 10 6 6 ; and So ut hwest ern H i spanic, one i n 72 9
. A l l enum erat ed pro b ab i l i t i es ar e approxi mat e. -3- Subsequen tl y , f

o u r e xh ib it s w e r e s u b mi tt e d to th e T B I N a s h v il leCrim e L ab o r a to r y a nd in cluded: (1) blood standard f rom the petitioner; (2) blood standard f rom the victim; (3) vag inal swab from the victim; and, (4) vag inal swab take n from the victim at the f unera l home.

Th e Of fi c ia l Se ro log y

/D NARe po rt

fr om the TB I

la bo ratory re su lts re fl e c te d th a t th e a na ly sis on one vag inal swab wa s an inconc lusive match with the petitioner but that the other va g inal swab, taken at the funer al home, indicate d the sperm f rac tion thereon wa s a conc lusive match with the petitioner. 1

The State filed a response incorporating the analy sis results and submitti ng that further relief should be denied. T he trial c ourt then filed an order stating in pe rtinent part, “ [t ]he testing done indicates that the vag inal swabs taken from the victim match the D NA of [the petitioner]. There fore , the pos t-c o n v ic ti o n D N A a n a ly s is is n o t f a v o r ab leto th e p e ti ti o n e r . Pu r s u a n t t o T e n n e s s e e Co de Annotated se ction 40-30-312, this petition is dis missed.” 2

Th e Pos t- Con vic tio n D NAAn a ly sis Ac t of 20 01 pr ov ide s th a t pe rs on s c on vic te d of c e rt a in crimes, including murder and ag g ravated ra pe, “may at any time, file a pe tition requestin g the fore nsic DNA analy sis of any evidenc e that is in the possession or control of the prosec ution, law-4-

enfor ceme nt, laboratory

or court, and that is relate d to the investigation or prosec ution that resulted in the judgme nt of conviction and that may contain biolog ical evide nce.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30- 303. After

notice to prosec ution and an opportunity for r esponse, the A ct requires a court to orde r DNA analy sis if a ll the four following criteria are met: ( 1) [a] rea sonable probability exis ts that the petitioner would not have been pr osecute d or convic ted i f exculpatory results had be en obtained throug h DNA analy sis; (2) the evidenc e is still i n exis ten ce an d i n s u ch a c ondition that DNA analy sis may be conducted; (3) the evidence was never previously subjected to DN A ana ly sis or was not subjected to the a naly sis that is now requested w hich could re s o l v e an i s s u e not resolved by previous ana ly s i s ; an d (4) the a pplication for analy sis is m ade f or the purpose of demonstrating innocenc e a n d n o t t o u n r e a s o n ab ly d e lay th e e xe c u ti o n o f

s e n te n c e o r

a d mi n is tr a ti o n o f

ju s ti c e. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-304.

“The failure to meet any

of the qualifying criteria is, of cour se, fatal to the action.” William D. B uford v. State, No. M2002 -0 2 1 8 0 -C CA-R3-PC, 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 370 (Tenn. Cr im. Ap p. , a t Na sh vil le , Ap r. 24 , 20 03 ). Th e sc op e of ou r re vie w on app e a l is lim ite d a s thepo stc on vic tio n c ou rt

is g ive n c on sid e ra

bledis c re tio n inde c idi ng wh e the r the pe tit ion er is e nti tle d to relief under the Act. See Jack Jay Shuttl e v. State, No. E2003- 00 1 3 1 -C C A- R 3-PC, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. L EXI S 80, at *11 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxvi lle, Dec
. 16, 2004). This Court will not
re ve rs e the po st- c on vic tio n co urt unle ss the jud g me nt is not sup po rt e d by su bs ta nti a l evi de nc e . St a te v. Hollingsworth, 6 4 7 S
. W .2d 937, 938 (Tenn. 1983) ; see a lso Ensley , 2003 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 335, at *11 n.2.-5-

The Ac t was cr eated as a p re cautionary safe g uard a g ainst the wrong ful conviction or
se nte nc ing of

a de fe nd a nt and re qu ir e s the po st- c on vic tio n co urt to a ssu me theDN A ana ly sis wi ll
reve al ex culpatory

results in its determination as to whether to order D NA testing . Shuttl e, 2004 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXI S 370, at *13-14.

I n the instant case , the post-conviction court order ed the exis ting e vidence to be submitted for testing . For

unexplained rea sons, only the two vag inal swabs we re submitted. The pe tit i oner complains that ce rtain items of evide nce: fing er nail scra pings from the victim’s hands, hairs found on the victim’s body , and an anal swab taken fr om the victim, we re not submitted by the State. The petitioner further a sserts that the results from the TB I lab wer e “c ontradictory

and questionable ” and gi v e r i s e t o an o rd erfo r i n d ep en d en tt es t i n g.

Th e po st- c on vic tio n co urt, upo n re c e ivi ng theState ’s re sp on se inc lud ing theDN A ana ly sis report, d i s m i s s ed t h e petiti on due to its unfavora ble re sults for the petitioner. In our view, the analy sis report on the two va g inal swabs wa s not c ontradictory or questionable. One was indicative as orig inating w ith the petitione r (one in 967), but inconclusive. Howe ver, the swab take n at the funer al home was conclusive in ide ntify ing the sample as that of the petitioner’s. Upon re ceipt of this information, the probability that the p et i t i o n er would not have be en prose cuted no long er exis ted. I n the fa ce of

conclusive DNA proof unfavor able to the pe titioner, the statutory criteria wer e
no lon g e r m e t. Th us , the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt wa s ju sti fi e d indis mis sin g thepe tit iona ndwa s in compliance with Tenne ssee Code Annotated section 40-30-312. This statute provides that “[i] f the-6-

re su lts of the po st- c on vic tio n DN A ana ly sis areno t f a vo ra bleto the pe tit ion e r, thec ou rt sh a ll d ism iss the petition, and make suc h further order s as may

be appr opriate.”

The re cord doe s not refle ct why the other e vidence items that could have c ontained biolog ical evidenc e we re not submitted for testing
. There may very well be g ood rea sons for the f ailure that
are unstated in the re cord. The Ac t d o es not provide for selec tive submissi on of evide nce but
re fe re nc e s “ a ny

e vid e nc e that is in the po sse ssi on or c on tr ol o f the pr os e c uti on , la w e nf or c e me nt, laborat o ry , o r court, and that is relate d to the investigation or prosec ution that resulted in the judgme nt of conviction and that may contain biolog ical evide nce.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 30-303. Our a ffirmation of the pos t-conviction court’s dismiss al of the petit ion does not repr esent a pproval of selec tive submissi on. Howeve r, under the fac ts of this c ase, the purpose of the Act, sa feg uarding ag a in s t w r o n g f

u l c o n v ic ti o n , h a s b e e n s e r v e d
. A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g me n t o f th e p o s t- c o n v ic tion court is af firmed.

___________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WI LL I AMS, J UDGE