Does an appellate court violate the core princ ipals of Brady in post -conviction review where in its materiality analysis it disregards both evidence clearly available at the time of trial and also its own prior opinion on direct appeal where it held that defendant 's identity as the perpetrator of the crime was established by his bloody fingerprint on the knife found under one of the victim's bodies?

Does an appellate court violate the core principles of Brady in post-conviction review