ÿWPC£ 9# .Æ9 %ÿ 0(w@-4mU:˜U:Ò 0l  0DxƼÆ‚ÆH 0J 0TX 0^¬ 0h 0rr 0|ä 0†` 0æ 1uv 0dë D3O U*‚ B)¬ BÕ AQò ÆC 0D  0@M 0DDCÑ D/ BC A©` AO  D+X 0KƒÎfìv~RvÓИHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 X($¡¡ l‹mUoUpUrUstuvÓ€‚§aö"3|x‚, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularÂ"Arial Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 52 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ(((('ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d*+,-/Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó''''7Border 1dd00'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd,43›&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK*,4.Cþÿ << Gÿÿ'ÈÈÈÈdxd( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌò òAugust€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€&ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\ÑPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ Y XXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑœÑ  ÑÙ€*ÙßR€25.A1-j||þØ` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€JACKSONÌ€APRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓÓLARRY€D.€CARR,à àà àà àà à)à àNO.€02C01„9605„CR„00137à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€ARTHUR€T.€BENNET,€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à à(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)Ìà à€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEEóóÌÌHarold€D.€Archibaldà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ33€North€Front€Street,€Suite€790à àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMemphis,€Tennessee€38103à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDeborah€A.ÏTullisà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohn€W.€PierottiÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee€38103„1947ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJennifer€NicholsÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€Tennessee€38103„1947Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌœÌÌ›ÌOPINION€FILED:______ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART€„„€DELAYED€APPEAL€GRANTEDÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÑ€6ÑÇòòÓÓÓ  ÓOpinionóóÌÓ  Óà àThe€Appellant,€Larry€D.€Carr,€appeals€as€of€right€the€Shelby€County€CriminalÏCourtððs€dismissal€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€argues€that€his€trialÏattorney€provided€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€have€reviewed€the€record€onÏappeal€and€find€that€the€Appellantððs€trial€attorney€provided€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€through€the€trial€œand€the€appeal€to€this€Court,€but›€failed€to€advise€theÏAppellant€of€his€right€œto€seek€permission€to›€appeal€his€case€to€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€Accordingly,€we€œvacate€this€Courtððs€opinion€entered€on€February€16,Ï1994,€and€re„enter€the€opinion€so€that€the€Appellant€may€file€an€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€pursuant€to€Rule€11€of€theÏTennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.›€€We€affirm€the€trial€court€in€all€otherÏrespects.Ìà àThe€Appellant,€while€on€parole€for€aggravated€robbery,€was€arrested€andÏcharged€with€another€instance€of€aggravated€robbery.€€After€a€trial€on€the€merits,€aÏjury€found€the€Appellant€guilty€as€charged.€€The€trial€court€later€sentenced€him€to€tenÏyears€imprisonment.€€The€Appellant€appealed€his€conviction€to€this€Court€and€weÏaffirmed.€€òòState€v.€Larry€D.€Carróó,€C.A.A.€No.€02C01„9204„CR„00075€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.,€Jackson,€Feb.€16,€1994).€€On€July€8,€1994,€the€Appellant€filed€this€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€On€December€15,€1995,€after€an€evidentiary€hearing,€the€trialÏcourt€filed€a€memorandum€denying€the€Appellantððs€petition.€ÌÓÓÓÓà àThe€Appellant€argues€that€his€constitutional€right€to€the€effective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€was€violated.€€In€reviewing€an€appellantððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€ofÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€determine€whether€the€advice€givenÏor€services€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competency€demandedÏof€attorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€ÏTo€prevail€on€a€claim€of€ineffective€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððsÏrepresentation€fell€below€an€objective€standard€or€reasonablenessðð€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€counselððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694,€104€S.Ct.€2053,€2064,Ï2067„68,€80€L.Ed.€674€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708€S.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1985).Ìà àThe€Appellant€claims€that€his€attorney€insufficiently€investigated€his€case€byÏfailing€to€interview€potential€witnesses.€€The€evidence€in€the€record€clearly€shows€thatÏthe€Appellantððs€attorney€sufficiently€investigated€this€case.€€The€Appellantððs€attorneyÏreviewed€the€Stateððs€file€and€then€sent€an€investigator€to€take€statements€from€theÏStateððs€key€witnesses.€€She€also€investigated€potential€defense€witnesses€suggestedÏby€the€Appellant,€but€those€witnesses€either€were€unavailable€or€did€not€cooperate.€ÏMoreover,€the€Appellant€failed€to€introduce€the€testimony€of€any€witnesses€at€theÏpost„conviction€hearing.€€Without€such€testimony,€we€are€unable€to€review€theÍAppellantððs€claim€that€he€was€prejudiced.€€òòSeeóó€òòWade€v.€Stateóó,€914€S.W.2d€97,102Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€757€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1990).€€Ìà àThe€Appellant€also€claims€that€his€lawyer€prejudiced€his€defense€byÏintroducing€police€lineup€photographs€of€the€Appellant€to€the€jury.€€The€AppellantððsÏlawyer€did€introduce€three€or€four€police€lineup€photographs,€but€she€did€that€toÏattempt€to€prove€that€the€Stateððs€key€witness€had€erroneously€identified€the€AppellantÏas€the€robber.€Tactical€decisions,€such€as€this€one,€are€not€subject€to€post„convictionÏchallenges.€€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982).€€Moreover,€allÏinformation€on€those€pictures€that€suggested€that€the€Appellant€had€committed€priorÏcrimes€was€deleted.€€The€Appellant€has€failed€to€show€prejudice€€Ìà àThe€Appellant€next€claims€that€his€trial€attorney€was€inefficient€because€sheÏfailed€to€file€a€motion€to€suppress€a€police€report€which€allegedly€containedÏconflicting€and€erroneous€information.€€The€Appellant€failed€to€introduce€a€copy€of€theÏpolice€report€into€the€record€and,€therefore,€we€are€unable€to€review€his€claim€that€heÏwas€prejudiced.Ìà àFinally,€the€Appellant€argues€that€his€counsel€failed€to€advise€him€of€his€right€toÏseek€second€tier€appellate€review€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€and€that€heÏshould€be€granted€a€delayed€appeal.€€The€State€concedes€that€this€argument€hasÏmerit€and€we€agree.€€Ìà àAfter€the€Appellantððs€attorney€completed€her€representation€of€the€AppellantÏand€was€permitted€to€withdraw,€she€sent€him€a€letter€advising€him€that€she€wasÏwithdrawing€and€that€if€he€wanted€to€appeal€he€had€three€years€to€file€a€petition€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€She€did€not€advise€him€that€he€could€file€a€petition€asking€forÏpermission€to€appeal€his€case€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.Ìà àRule€14€of€the€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€requiresÏattorneys€withdrawing€from€further€representation€of€indigent€defendants€to€notifyÏthem€in€writing:ÌÓÓà8 à(1)€that€counsel€does€not€intend€to€file€an€Application€for€Permission€toÏAppeal€and€that€leave€of€Court€is€being€sought€to€withdraw;€(2)€that€theÏdefendant€may€file€a€pro€se€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal€withÏthe€Clerk€of€the€Supreme€Court€if€filed€within€sixty€(60)€days€after€entryÏof€final€judgment€in€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals;€(3)€the€date€on€whichÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€opinion€was€released;€and€(4)€the€dateÏon€which€an€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal€is€due.€ÓÓÌRule€14,€Rules€of€the€Supreme€Court€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€œÌà àMinimum›€compliance€with€this€rule€is€necessary€to€protect€defendantsðð€dueÏprocess€rights.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€653€S.W.2d€765,€767€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€WhenÏa€defendant€is€denied€second€tier€appellate€review€by€no€fault€of€his€own,€he€isÏentitled€to€a€delayed€appeal.€€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2d€676,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1984).Ìà àThe€Appellantððs€trial€counsel€failed€to€notify€the€Appellant€of€his€right€to€seekÏsecond€tier€review.€€Therefore,€we€grant€the€Appellant€the€right€to€seek€a€delayedÍappeal€from€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€Accordingly,€we€vacate€our€judgment€ofÏFebruary€16,€1994,€and€reinstate€it€as€of€the€date€of€the€release€of€this€opinion.ÌÌÌœÓÓÌÌÌ›à àà àà àà àœ›à àà àà à__________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:Ì̛̜̜__________________________›ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌ̛̜Ì__________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE