### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE JU N E 200 5 S es sio n STEV EN GRIF FIN v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE App e al b y pe r m iss ion fro mth eCo ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

Crim inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 93-C- 1154 Steve D ozier , Judge

No. M2003- 00557-SC-R11- P C - F iled Janu ary 13, 2006
W e acc epted review of t his cause u nder the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ru le 11 , in or de r to ad dr es s a qu es ti on of f irs t i m pr es si on : wh et he r th e ri gh t t o DNA analy sis created by the Post-Conviction DN A A naly sis Act of 2001 m ay be wa ived by im pli ca tio n. B ecau se th e cl ear la ngua ge of th is A ct pr ovi de s th at

ape tit ion f

or
an aly si s m ay be fil eda t a ny ti m e, w e hol d th at the f ili ng o f suc h ape tit ion is not subj ec t t o im

pli edw ai ve r. T his hol din g, how ev er , a ff ec ts o nlye lig ibi lit y to f

ile the pe tit ion ; the r eq uir emen ts s et f orth i n th e A ct

m ust be m et be fo re r el ie f m aybe gr an te d. Acco rd ingly , a nd f or the r ea sons state d, w e re ve rs e the j udgmen t of the Court of Criminal Appeals and rem and the case to the trial court for further pr oc ee din gs p ur sua nt t o th is o pin ion
.

Te nn . R . A pp . P . 11 Ap pe al by P er m iss ion ; Ju dg m en t of t he C ou rt

of C ri m in al A pp ea ls R e v e r s e d a n d C a s e R e m a n d e d t o t h e C r i m i n a l C o u r tf o r D a v i d s on-2-

Coun ty

A DOL P HO A. B I RCH , J ., d elivered the opinio n of the court, in w hich W I L L I A M M. B AR KE R , C.J ., an d E. R I L E Y A NDE RS ON , J AN I CE M. H O L DER , JJ. , a nd F R A N K F. D RO W OTA , II I, S p. J. , j oin ed
.

T hom as Bl oom , N as hvi lle , T en ne sse e, f or the A ppe lla nt, S te ve n G ri ff in.

Paul G
. S umm er s, A tto rn eyG en er al a nd R ep orte r; Mi ch ael E. Moor e, S oli ci tor G en er al ; and Br en t C. Ch er ry , A ssi sta nt A tto rn eyG en er al , f or the A ppe lle e, S ta te of Te nnessee.

OPIN ION

I. Fac ts and Procedural H istory

The app e l l a nt , S t e ve n Griffin, wa s indicted by the Da vidso n County Gr and Jury for m ultip le counts of aggravated rape and a single count of k idnapp ing. Ha ving been extradited in Jun e 1993, from Florida to Te nnessee, he dem anded a sp eedy trial underTh e I nte rs tate Compa c t onDe ta ine rs , A rtic le I I I , p ara g ra ph(a ) p ro vid e s, in p art , 1 Whenever

a per son has enter ed upon a te rm of imprisonment i n a penal or corr ectional institution of a party state, and w heneve r during the continuanc e of the term of imprisonment thereis pending in any other pa rty state any untried i ndictment, information or complaint on the basis of whic h a detainer ha s been lodg ed ag ainst the prisoner, the person shall be brought to trial within one hundre d eighty ( 180) days afte r having cause d to be delivered to the prosecuting of fice r and the appropriate court of the prose cuting o ffice r' s jurisdiction written notice of the placeof the pe rson' s imprisonmen t and re quest for a final disposition t o be madeof the indictment , i n fo rmation or complaint; provided, that for g ood causeshown in op en court, the priso n er o r the prisone r' s counsel being prese nt, the court ha ving jurisd ict ion of

thematte r m a y

g rant any

ne c e ssa ry or re a so na ble continuance
. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 31-101(2003 & Supp. 2005) (emphasis adde d)

. -3- the Interstate Co mp act on De tainers. T he State obliged, and his trial comm enced 1

w ith in 1 80 da y s. O n O ct obe r 14, 1993 , a D av ids on C ount y j ur y c onvi ct edG ri ff in o f six coun ts of aggravated rape and one count of k idnapp ing. T he trial court im posed
a se nte nc e of

e igh ty -f ive y ears in the D ep artmen t of Cor re ct ion s; a sen te nc e he now
se rv es . T his j udgmen t w as a ff ir m ed on di rec t appe al
. I n O ct obe r 1996 , G ri ff in pe tit ion edf

or pos t- co nvi ct ion r el ie f on the ba sis of ine ff ec tiv e as sis ta nc e of

c ouns el
. T he tr ia l c ourt de nie d po st- co nvi ct ion r el ie f, a nd the j udgmen t w as a ff ir m edby the Co urt of Crimina l A ppe al s.

Procee ding pro se, Griffin reques t ed DN A a naly sis in Decem ber 2002 un derThe Post -C o n v i cti on DNA Analy sis Act became ef fec tive in Aug ust 2001. Tenn. Code 2 Ann. §§ 40-30-301 to - 313 (2003)

. -4- the P ost -C onvi ct ion D N A A na ly sis A ct of 200 1. H is petit ion inc lud edthe

2 fo llo w ing : T he pe tit ion er

. . . r eq ue st[ s] th at al l hu m an bio log ic al e vid en ce in the p o s s e s s i o n o r

c o n tr o l o f

t h e p r o s e c u t i o n , l a w e n f o r c e men t , l ab o r a t o r y, or co urt w hic h re la te s to [ thi s] inv es tig at ion a nd p ro se cu tio n . . . be he ld fo r DNA Anal y si s. The petitioner re spectfully asserts acc ording to his kno wledg e and belief th atth e h um an bi ol og ic al ev id en ce h a s ne ve r be en su bjec t t o DNA Analy sis f

or com parison and identification purposes f rom t h e a lleged vic tim of [ thi s] c au se of

a ct ion
. The pe ti ti on er d id su bm ita bl oo d s am pl e fo r DNA Anal y si s. . . . The probabil ity does exist th at the petitioner would nothave been prosecuted and/o r convicted if exculpatory results had been obt ai ned thr ough D N A A na ly sis
. The a vailability of D NAAnaly sis would h av e p roduced a m ore fav o ra b le result leading to the petiti oner’ s inno cence of the charged offense. The S tate m oved to d ismiss the petiti o n on the groun ds (1) that “ no DN A e vidence
ex ist s w hic h c oul d be sub j ec te d to te st ing or

a na ly sis ” an d ( 2) tha t “ D N A A na ly sis of the e vid en ce w oul d no t h av e ch an ge d or in an y w aya lte re d th e j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t” be cause G ri ff

in r el ie d on the de fe nse of c onse nt a t tri al
.-5-

T he tr ia l c ourt de nie d G ri ff in’ s pe tit ion w ith out

a n e vid en tiary he aring. T he
co urt sp ec if

ic al ly he ld tha t Grif

fi n had “ opt ed out ” of D N A te sti ng b y de m an din g a speedy trial and by advancing the theo ry of consensual sex at trial. The trial court
re as one d th at

und er the se c ir cu m sta nc es , D N A ev ide nc e w oul d have be en use le ss t o G ri ff in.

On di rect appeal, the Court of C riminal Appeals aff irm ed the trial co u rt ’s j udgmen t. T he Co urt st at eda s f oll ow s: [W ] e co nc lud e tha t the tr ia l c ourt sh oul d not have tr ea te d th e re que st f or D N A a na ly sis a s ape tit ion to re open the e arlie r post -c onvi ct ion proceeding. W e further conclude that the stat e’s resp onse was inadequate to explain whyit could no t produce the requested evidence an d , t h e r e f

o r e , c o u l d n o t s u p p l y g r o u n d s t o s u mm ar i l y d i s mi ss t he pe tit ion er ’ s r eq ue st. Mor eo ve r, w e co nc lud e tha t the “ co nse nsua l se x” th eo ry of de fen se di d n ot , as a m atter of la w, de featth e req ue stforDNA an al y si s. Fi na lly , how ev er , w e hol d th at the appl ic at ion w as pr ope rl y dis m is sed f

or f ai lur e to s at isf

y the statut or y c ondi tio n th at “ [t ] he ap pli ca tio n f

or a na ly sis is m ad e fo r the pur pose of de m onstratin g inn oc en ce and no t t o un re as onablyde la ythe e xe cu tio n of se nte nc e or ad mini str at ion j ust ic e. ” T en n. Co de
. A nn. § 40-3 0- 304( 4) ( 2003 ), a nd fo r tha t r ea son w e af

fi rm the j udgmen t of

the tr ia l c ourt. G ri ff in v
. S ta te , N o. M2 003- 0055 7- CC A -R 3- PC , sli p op. at 9 (T en n. Crim
. A pp. Jul y 13, 2004). G riffin now appeals to t h i s Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Te nnessee Ru le s o f App el la te Pro ced ur e.-6- II. Standard of Re view

W he the r a st at ut e is s usc ep tib le to im pli edw ai ve r is a

que sti on o f la w . T he conclusio ns of l aw of a post-conv iction court are review ed under a d e n ovo st andard
w ith no p re sum

pti on o f co rr ec tne ss. S er ra no v . S ta te , 133 S. W
. 3d 5 99, 603 ( T en n. 2004 ) (c iting Fields v. S tate, 40 S.W .3d 450, 458 (Tenn. 2001 )).

II I. A na ly sis

The P ost-Convi ction DN A A naly si s A c t o f 2 001 (“ The A ct”) pr ovi de s f or pos tco nvi ct ion D N A a na ly sis f o r p e t i t i o n e r s c o n v ic te d a nd s en te nc edf or c erta in h omic ide
an d se xua l a ssault

of fe nse s in w hic h b io lo gi cal ev ide nc e m ayha ve e xis te d. T en n. Co de A nn. § 40 -3 0- 303 (2 003 & S upp. 200 5)
. T he A ct a ddr es se s tw o c at eg or ie s of cases in which DN A analy sis m ight be appropriate. First, DN A a naly sis is m andatory
an d m ust be or de re d in c as es w he re the tr ia l c ourt f ind s th at : (1 ) A r ea sonable pr obabil itye xis ts tha t the pe tit ion er w oul d no t ha ve been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results had been obtain ed thr ough D N A a na ly sis ; (2 ) The ev id en ce i s s ti ll in ex is te nc e an d in su ch a co nd it io n th atDNA an al y sis m aybe c ondu ct ed ;-7-

(3 ) T he e vid en ce w as ne ve r pr ev iou slysub j ec te d to D N A a na ly sis or w as not sub j ec te d to the a na ly sis tha t i s no w r eq ue ste d w hic h c oul d re sol ve a n is sue not

r es olv edby pr ev iou s a na ly sis ; a nd (4 ) T he appl ic at ion f

or a na ly si s is m ad e fo r the pur pose of de m onstratin g in noce nc e an d no t t o un re as ona blyde la y the e xe cu tio n of sen te nc e o r ad min is tra ti on of ju st ic e. Te nn. Code A nn. § 40-30-304 (2003).
Additionally , D NAanaly sis is d i scretionary and m ay be ordered if the trial
co urt f ind s th at : (1) A r ea sonable pr obabil itye xis ts tha t a na ly sis of the e vid en ce w ill produce DN A results which would have rendere d the petitio ner's ver dict or se nte nc e m or e fa vor ab le if the r es ult s ha d be en a va ilab le a t the pr oc ee din g le ad ing to the j udgmen t of c onvi ct ion ; (2 ) The ev id en ce is st il l in ex is te nc e an d i n s uc h aco nd it io n t ha t DNA an al y sis m aybe c ondu ct ed ; (3 ) T he e vid en ce w as ne ve r pr ev iou slysub je ct edto D N A a na ly sis , or w as not sub j ec te d to the a na ly sis tha t i s no w r eq ue ste d w hic h c oul d re sol ve a n is sue not

r es olv edby pr ev iou s a na ly sis ; a nd (4 ) T he appl ic at io n for a na ly sis is m ad e fo r the pur pose of de m onstratin g in noc en ce a nd n ot t o un re as ona blyde la y the e xe cu tio n of sentence or administration of j ustice. Ten n. Co de Ann . § 4 0- 30 -3 05 (20 03 ).
N otw ith sta ndi ng the tri al co urt’ s f ind ing of w ai ve r, the A ct

inc lud es e xpl ic it-8-

language that m akes DN A a naly sis available at any tim e. [A] pers on co nv ic te d of an d se nt en ced fo r . . . ag gr av at ed rap e . . . m ay at an y ti me , fi le a pe tit ion r eq ue sti ng the f or en sic D N A a na ly sis of

a ny evidence that is in the possess ion or control o f the prosecution, law en fo rc emen t, labor at or y , or co urt, an d th at is re la te d to the inv es tig at ion or prosecution that resulted in the judgm ent of conviction and that m ay contain bio logical evidence. T en n. Co de A nn. § 40 -3 0- 303 (2 003) ( em pha sis a dde d)
. T his pr ovi sio n ha s no sta tut or y ti m e lim

it an d gi ve s pe tit ion er s th e oppo rtuni ty to r eq ue st a na ly sis a t “ an y ti m e,” wh et he r orno t s uc h areq ue stwas m ad e attri al
.

O n appe al , the Co urt of

Crimina l A ppe al s c orre ct ly not edthat t he re is n o sta t u t o ry t i m e l imitation for filing a petitio n for D NAanaly sis. Se e id. The c ourt
reas on ed , ho wev er, t ha t b ecau se Griff in ha d d em an de d asp eed y t r i a l a n d DNA te sti ng cou ld no t ha ve be en c om ple te d prior

to tr ia l, G ri ff

in h ad“ w ai ve d” his r igh t to D N A te sti ng b y kno w ing ly “ by pa ssi ng” D N A te sti ng s o a s to take a dva nta ge of his ri ght t o a s p e e d y tr i a l
. A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e c o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t G r i f f i n h a d f a ile d to de mo n s tr at e i n hi s appl ic at ion one of the e vid en tiarypr er eq uis ite s – “ [t ] he appl ic at ion fo r an al y si s is m ad e fo r the pur pose of de m onstratin g in noc en ce a nd n ot t o
unr ea sonably de la y the ex ec uti on of se nte nc e or ad mini str at ion of j ust ic e. ” Se e T en n. Code Ann. §§ 40 -30-304(4) & -305(4).-9-

In th e d is se nt in g o pi ni on , Ju dg e Tip to n n ot es , T he P ost -C onvi ct ion D N A A na ly sis A ct ha s no pr ovi sio n th at

e ve n hi nts of w ai ve r re la tiv e to a

r eq ue st t o te st e vid en ce for th e fi rs t t ime. T he applicable requirement for c on si de r at i oni s T
. C
. A
. § 4 0- 30

- 30 4( 3) which sta te s: "T he ev ide nc e w as ne ve r pr ev iou slysub j ec te d to D N A a na ly sis or w as not subj ec te d to the an al y sis tha t i s no w r eq ue ste d w hic h c oul d re sol ve a n is sue not

r es olv edby pr ev iou s a na ly sis
. " T he fo cu s is o n th e fact that no test occurre d, no t on whether a p revious oppo rtunity existed or wa s pursued to have the test done. G ri ff in v
. S ta te , N o. M2 003- 0055 7- CC A -R 3- PC , sli p op . a t 10 (T en n C ri m . A pp. Jul y 13, 2004 ) (T ipt on, J. , dis se nti ng)
. C onsi de ratio n of ape tit ion under the discretionary
an al y sis se t f

orth i n T en ne sse e Co de A nnot at ed se ct ion 40- 30- 305( 3) is subj ec t t o th e
sa m e req ui rem en t. We agre e wit h J ud ge Tip to n’s an al y si s. [C ] ourts m

ust a tte m pt to giv e ef

fe ct to the le gis la tiv e purpose a nd i nte nt of a statute, as determin ed b y the ordinary m eaning of its text, rather tha n se ek to al te r or

a m en d it
. Whe n astatut e la ck s c ontra dic tio n or am big ui ty, co ur ts ar e not

a t l ibe rt y to de part

f ro m the w or ds o f the st at ut e. If the la ngua ge c ont ai ne d w ith in the f our co rn er s of a sta tut e is pla in, c le ar , a nd un am

big uous , the dut y of

the c ourts i s si m

ple a nd obvi ous, to sa y sic le x sc ri pta , a nd o be y it
. W au sau I ns. Co
. v. D or se tt, 172 S
. W
. 3d 5 38, 543 ( T en n. 200 5) ( ci ta ti on s a nd quot at ion s om

itt ed ). T he pla in l an gua ge of se ct ion 40- 30- 303 ind ic at es tha t a pe tit ion
m aybe f ile d a t a ny ti m e, a nd n o pr ovi sio n in the A ct pr ovi de s fo r w ai ve r by f ai lin g to request analy sis at a prior proceeding. T hus, while w e find that DN A a naly sis m ay be expressly wa ived, or even abandon ed, we conclude that und er norm al-10-

ci rc um sta nc es , the r igh t t o D N A a nalysis un de r the A ct m aynot be w ai ve d by im pli ca tio n.

T he Co urt of

Crimina l A ppe al s a lso f

oundthat the pe tit ion er

ha d f ai le d to sho w that his petit ion was not filed for im proper d ilatory purpos es. One of the prerequisites fo r D N A a na ly sis is tha t the “ ap pli ca tio n f or a na ly sis is m ad e fo r the pur pose of de m onst rat ing inn oc en ce and not to unre ason abl

y de lay the ex ec uti on o

f se nte nc e or the administration of justi ce .” Ten n. C ode A nn. §§ 4 0- 30- 304( 4) , 40- 30- 305( 4) (em phasis add ed).

N oti ng c onc ern about

finali ty in its a na ly sis r eg ar din g w ai ve r, the Co urt of Crimina l A ppe al s c onc lud edtha t G ri ff in f ai le d to de m onstrate that hi s pe tit ion w oul d

“ n o tu n re as o n ab l y d el ay t h e e x ec u t i o n o f s en t en ce o r a d mi n i s tra t i o n o f ju s t i ce .” We
are puzzled by this conclusio n, especially in ligh t of the fac t that when G riffin filed the pe tit ion he ha d be en se rv ing his se nte nc e an d c ont inu es to do s o. W e ca n f indno ot he r ev id en ce i n t he reco rd to su pp or t t hi s co nc lu si on of u nr eas on ab le de la y .

A s th is c as e de m onstrate s, f ind ing s of

f ac t upon which ri ght s are gr an te d or de nie d are be st m ad e fo llo w ing a n e vid en tiaryhe aring
. W ith out a n e vid en tiaryba sis-11-

in the r ec or d, w e ar e unable to de te rm ine w he the r the pe tit ioner’ s pu rp ose f or
re que sti ng D N A a na ly sis m ee ts the c ri te ri a of the A ct .

IV
. Co nc lus ion

W e co nc lud e that un de r the f ac ts o f thi s c as e, the pe tit ion er ha s no t i m

pli ed ly
w ai ve d hi s r igh t t o D N A a na lysis an d is e nti tle d to ahe aring und er the P ost
Co nvi ct ion D N A A na ly sis A ct of 20 01. In li ght of the above , the j udgmen t of the Co urt of Crimina l A ppe al s is r ev er se d. The cause is re m an de d to the tr ia l c ourt f or the p ur pose o f co nduc tin g a n e vid en tiaryhe aring to m ak e fi ndi ngs of f ac t a nd
co nc lus ion s of

la w in ac co rd an ce w ith the P ost-C onvi ct ion D N A A na ly sis A ct of 2001 , Tennessee Code A nnot ated sections 40-30 -301 to -313
. Costs of this appeal
ar e t a x e d t o t h e S t a t e o f

Te n n e s s e e , f

o r wh i c h e x e c u t i o n may i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ AD OL PH O A. BIRC H, JR., JUST ICE