ÿWPC ½mPâ~èx»^dû÷Ì/uHS“}ÆØAÈ|Áq–ª‡}¾ÂP•“´xCk9†àÍt"e{ÒjM5Hf.àzfb:€ Q é,6ôj4qM™# Áªûß_.â}`ÅJKuºß+šÖKêB¿þ±oÑ娰$”ªTöÎŽ¿-úCy7ÕE : ­e{BUÒ·9¨VÄÁUeä„“@– a_ŽŽGEɺ-`*émã™/ƒ¶Kixˆ^ÉíÓˆÚ´‹z²Te!×]ÿð¨µè6øI>~¶Ö©%A4ìî.}Z]Šs *J ëÔEoG‹¤M+8 }žvW:…묌¶4ˆâc­sÿ!ú¾ÆÈÎ3ëêÛwÄ@(蛿†Æ×¯Èxo‹NäѬtQÿºÅ±rÐkê{šÊà‡”¶iÞÙ~` ™8/D¢½øô~ePµÂ°º?ÜËºŽ½SIWÀ¦²§™Ä^@7òt9†…# F U>Q % 0í• UB‚ 4Ä Ø n­ç U:” fÎ 4 "< w@^ åž U:ƒ 01½ 0DîU:22222U:lU:¦U:àU:U:TU:ŽŽŽŽŽŽ BÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ D3ååå 0D AO\Æ«« 0Dq D/µ Bä˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiuM%3|x¯ «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular \Ñ\R AØ'ÿ Legal\Ñ Ñ Ü ÑÑ  Ñ ž DŸ   ¡ ¢ £ D¤ D¥ ¦ Ó€ ÛÔ€X,¾XXXÔÔ€šDXX,¾ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€X,¾XšDÔÐ  ÐÌMarch€3,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó, øð AZ"Arial Regular(á(3ì($¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€K§XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular, øð AZ"Arial Regular+ÄâK AZ"Arial Regular d""""'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€K§XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  ݛѰÑÑܰÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÑ€ †ÑÑ€ í:ÑÔ€ X,¾XXXÔÑ7€ ,¾ XXdæXXdÈ7Ññ¦ ñœßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@E  ` 8ttxPXð  rß›ñ¦ ñ€à8 ¸ àà@Ñ Ñ D¸ x¸ xàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@#Dà€€€€AT€NASHVILLEà@@66-Rà€€€€€€€€€ˆÌà ¸ àà  à€€€€€€€€€€€€€DECEMBER€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓBILLY€JOE€GREENWOOD,€€€€€€€€€)à  àÐ 80 Ѐà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð   Ðà ¸ àAppellant,à h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9803„CR„00134Ð ü  Ðà ¸ à€€€€€à  àà h à€€à À à)Ð êâ  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àOverton€CountyÐ ÐÈ  Ðv.à ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)€€€€€€€€€Ð ¶®  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHonorable€Leon€Burns,€Jr.,€Judge€Ð œ”  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)ÌDAVID€NEWBERRY,€Warden,à À à)à  à€(Post„Conviction)Ð h` Ðand€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à À à)€€€€€€€€Ð NF Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà ¸ àAppellees.à h àà À à)à  àà p àÐ  ÐÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð æÞ ÐÌLynda€Simmonsà  àà h àà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkupà  àà x àÐ ²ª Ð107€East€Court€Square€à h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÐ ˜ ÐLivingston,€TN€38570à h àà À àà  àà p àandà È àà  àà x àà Ð àÐ ~v Ð(AT€TRIAL)à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àKim€R.€Helper€Ð d\ Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€€€€€€¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€Northà x àà Ð àÐ 0 ( ÐJohn€B.€Nisbet,€IIIà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493Ð ! Ð101€S.€Jefferson€AvenueÌCookeville,€TN€38501à h àà À àà  àWilliam€Edward€GibsonÐ â"Ú Ð(ON€APPEAL)à  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÐ È#À  Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à145€S.€Jefferson€AvenueÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCookeville,€TN€38501„3424Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àandÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àOwen€G.€BurnettÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àOverton€County€AnnexÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àP.O.€Box€706Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àLivingston,€TN€38570Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÌà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à€€€€€€€€Ìà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€DELAYED€APPEAL€GRANTED€WITH€JUDGMENT€IN€CASEÏNO.€01C01„9108„CC„00228€VACATED€AND€REINSTATEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÐ >:639 ЇÓÓà@õõ)Dàòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ¸ àœThe›€petitioner,€Billy€Joe€Greenwood,€appeals€as€of€right€from€the€OvertonÏCounty€Criminal€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€He€seeks€reliefÏfrom€œhis›€1990€œconvictions›€œfor›€first€degree€murder€and€first€degree€burglary€and€œfrom€hisÏeffective›€sentence€of€life€plus€six€years€imprisonment.€€This€court€affirmed€theÏconvictions€but€modified€the€sentences€to€run€concurrently.€€òòState€v.€Billy€JoeÐ ÜÔ  ÐGreenwoodóó,€No.€01C01„9108„CC„00228,€Overton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€3,Ð ¨   Ð1992).€€The€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€atÏtrial€and€on€direct€appeal€because€counsel€(1)€untimely€filed€the€motion€for€a€new€trialÏand€(2)€failed€to€file€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court.€€He€Ïalso€contends€that€the€trial€court€gave€an€unconstitutional€jury€instruction€regardingÏpremeditation€being€formed€in€an€instant.€€We€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððsÏdismissal€of€the€petition€with€respect€to€the€untimely€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€the€juryÏinstruction,€but€we€hold€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€a€delayed€appeal.€ÌÌà ¸ àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€testified€that€at€trial€and€onÏdirect€œappeal,›€he€was€represented€by€two€appointed€attorneys.€€The€petitioner€said€thatÏbefore€trial,€he€requested€that€his€attorneys€seek€a€change€of€venue€because€both€heÏand€the€victimððs€family€were€well€known€within€the€county€and€because€his€case€hadÏgenerated€a€lot€of€publicity.€€The€petitioner€stated€that€his€attorneys€told€him€that€thisÏwould€not€matter.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€stated€that€although€a€mental€evaluation€suggested€that€heÏneeded€mental€treatment€while€he€was€incarcerated€and€awaiting€trial,€his€attorneysÏnever€sought€such€help€for€him.€€The€petitioner€said€this€rendered€him€somewhatÏœunable›€to€assist€in€his€own€defense.ÌÐ ˜706 Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€testified€that€his€attorneys€filed€the€motion€for€a€new€trialÏnineteen€days€late.€€The€petitionerððs€post„conviction€attorney€noted€that€although€theÏcourt€of€criminal€appeals€reviewed€the€petitionerððs€case,€they€limited€their€review€toÏthose€errors€that€would€result€in€dismissal€rather€than€a€new€trial.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€petitioner€testified€that€he€also€felt€his€attorneys€were€ineffectiveÏbecause€they€did€not€seek€to€appeal€his€case€to€the€supreme€court.€€He€said€that€heÏreceived€a€letter€from€his€lead€attorney€stating€that€the€attorneys€were€œfinished›€with€hisÏcase,€but€it€did€not€tell€him€how€to€proceed.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€had€a€tenthÏgrade€education€and€an€I.Q.€of€78.€€He€said€that€he€did€not€understand€what€he€shouldÏdo€after€his€appeal€to€this€court€ended,€and€by€the€time€an€ð ðinmate€attorneyðð€advisedÏhim€on€how€to€proceed,€it€was€too€late€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court.ÌÌà ¸ àOne€of€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorneys€testified€that€he€was€appointed€toÏassist€the€petitionerððs€lead€attorney€after€the€state€gave€notice€that€it€would€seek€theÏdeath€penalty.€€The€attorney€stated€that€he€met€with€the€petitioner€at€the€jail€and€at€theÏcourthouse€a€number€of€times€and€that€his€investigator€also€met€with€the€petitioner.€€TheÏattorney€said€that€he€did€not€remember€discussing€a€change€of€venue€with€theÏpetitioner.€€He€stated€that€he€discussed€the€possibility€of€a€venue€change€with€theÏpetitionerððs€lead€attorney€but€that€they€apparently€œdecided›€they€did€not€have€a€sufficientÏbasis€to€request€a€change€in€venue.€€He€said€that€they€were€able€to€pick€a€jury€and€thatÏnothing€about€the€juryððs€selection€indicated€to€him€that€a€motion€for€a€change€of€venueÏwould€succeed.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€stated€that€Middle€Tennessee€Health€Center€had€evaluatedÏthe€petitioner€and€found€him€competent€and€sane.€€The€attorney€admitted€that€he€wouldÏhave€known€the€petitionerððs€IQ€during€the€time€he€was€preparing€for€trial.€€The€attorneyÏsaid€that€in€order€to€insure€that€the€petitioner€understood€their€discussions,€he€spokeÐ Œ7„06 ÐÑ í:ÑÑÜÜÑÑÑÑ  Ñcarefully€to€the€petitioner.€€He€said€that€he€knew€that€a€mental€expert€had€recommendedÏthat€the€petitioner€receive€mental€treatment€while€œincarcerated›€but€that€it€is€practicallyÏimpossible€to€arrange€for€such€treatment.€€The€attorney€stated€that€the€petitioner€wasÏcooperative€and€pleasant€and€that€he€felt€like€his€discussions€with€the€petitioner€wereÏproductive.€€The€attorney€said€that€he€and€the€petitionerððs€lead€attorney€were€able€to€getÏthe€state€to€withdraw€the€death€penalty€notice.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€nineteen€daysÏlate.€€He€explained€that€he€and€the€lead€attorney€were€waiting€for€the€state€to€correct€anÏerror€in€the€original€judgment.€€He€said€that€the€state€was€to€file€the€corrected€judgmentÏand€then€to€certify€a€copy€to€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorneys.€€He€stated€that€they€wereÏwaiting€on€the€corrected€judgment€before€they€filed€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€He€saidÏœthat›€instead,€the€original€judgment€was€filed€without€notice€to€them.€€€He€testified€that€byÏthe€time€the€corrected€judgment€and€the€motion€were€filed,€the€motion€was€untimely€inÏrelation€to€the€original€judgment.€€The€attorney€testified€that€he€did€not€recall€what€wasÏwrong€with€the€original€judgment.ÌÌà ¸ àOn€cross€examination,€the€attorney€testified€that€a€mental€health€expertÏevaluated€the€petitioner€before€trial€and€found€that€the€petitioner€was€not€able€toÏpremeditate€or€deliberate€at€the€time€the€murder€occurred€due€to€his€mental€state.€€TheÏattorney€stated€that€nothing€occurred€between€the€time€he€received€the€expertððsÏevaluation€and€the€trial€that€would€indicate€to€him€that€the€petitioner€needed€furtherÏmental€evaluation.€€The€attorney€said€that€the€petitionerððs€condition€seemed€to€improveÏgradually€as€the€trial€approached.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€all€of€the€jury€instructions€given€at€the€trial€wereÏthe€standard,€form€jury€instructions.€€He€said€that€neither€the€petitionerððs€attorneys€norÏthe€state€requested€that€any€special€instructions€be€given.€€Ð Œ7„06 Їà ¸ àThe€attorney€testified€that€he€and€the€lead€attorney€discussed€the€properÏprocedures€œin›€deciding€whether€they€should€pursue€an€appeal€to€the€supreme€court.€ÏHe€said€that€they€concluded€that€no€suitable€issues€for€review€by€the€supreme€courtÏexisted.€€He€testified€that€it€was€his€understanding€that€the€lead€attorney€then€sent€theÏappropriate€correspondence€to€the€petitioner€notifying€him€that€they€were€not€going€toÏtake€the€case€to€the€supreme€court.€€On€redirect€examination,€the€attorney€admitted€thatÏhe€and€the€lead€counsel€had€the€same€duty€toward€their€client€and€that€he€would€alsoÏbe€responsible€if€the€lead€attorney€had€not€adequately€informed€the€petitioner€of€œhow›€œtoÏappeal›€to€the€supreme€court.ÌÌà ¸ àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€œpetitioner›€failed€to€prove€that€he€had€receivedÏthe€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€It€found€that€the€petitionerððs€attorneys€consideredÏa€change€of€venue€but€felt€that€they€did€not€have€grounds€to€request€one.€€The€trialÏcourt€also€noted€that€a€jury€was€selected€and€that€the€petitioner€had€shown€no€indicationÏthat€the€jury€was€œbiased.›€€While€the€trial€court€did€express€concern€over€the€untimelyÏmotion€for€a€new€trial,€it€found€that€the€error€œdid€not›€rise€to€the€level€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€because€this€court€did€review€the€record.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏfound€that€the€jury€instructions€given€were€the€standard,€pattern€jury€instructions€andÏthat€the€œpetitioner›€failed€to€present€any€evidence€of€error€in€them.ÌÌà@Dàò òI.€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óˆÐ ø*ð#( Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel.€€Under€the€Sixth€Amendment,€when€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€is€made,€the€burden€is€upon€the€petitioner€to€show€(1)€that€counsel'sÏperformance€was€deficient€and€(2)€that€the€deficiency€was€prejudicial€in€terms€ofÏrendering€a€reasonable€probability€that€the€result€of€the€trial€was€unreliable€or€theÏproceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687,€104€S.Ð Ì5Ä.4 ÐCt.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€368„72,€113€S.€Ct.€838,Ð ˜706 Ð842„44€(1993).€€The€òòStricklandóó€standard€has€been€applied,€as€well,€to€the€right€toÐ  Ðcounsel€under€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772Ð ÔÌ ÐS.W.2d€417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,€493€U.S.€874€(1989).€€Ð   ˜ ÐÌà ¸ àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÐ 80 Мstated›€that€attorneys€should€be€held€to€the€general€standard€of€whether€the€servicesÏrendered€were€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€attorneys€in€criminalÏcases.€€Further,€the€court€stated€that€the€range€of€competence€was€to€be€measured€byÏthe€duties€and€criteria€set€forth€in€òòBeasley€v.€United€Statesóó,€491€F.2d€687,€696€(6th€Cir.Ð h` Ð1974)€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).€€Also,Ð 4, Ðin€reviewing€counsel's€conduct,€a€"fair€assessment€of€attorney€performance€requiresÏthat€every€effort€be€made€to€eliminate€the€distorting€effects€of€hindsight,€to€reconstructÏthe€circumstances€of€counsel's€challenged€conduct,€and€to€evaluate€the€conduct€fromÏcounsel's€perspective€at€the€time."€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.Ð d\ ÐCt.€at€2065;€òòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(counsel's€conduct€willÐ 0 ( Ðnot€be€measured€by€"20„20€hindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tacticÏfailed€or€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance.€€Deference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informedÏones€based€upon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;€òòDeCosteróó,€487Ð `'X $ ÐF.2d€at€1201.€€ÌÌà ¸ àAlso,€we€note€that€the€approach€to€the€issue€of€the€ineffective€assistanceÏof€counsel€does€not€have€to€start€with€an€analysis€of€an€attorney's€conduct.€€If€prejudiceÏis€not€shown,€we€need€not€seek€to€determine€the€validity€of€the€allegations€aboutÏdeficient€performance.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.Ð (2 +0 ÐÌà@DD/Dàò òˆÌÐ ˜706 ÐÑ †ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑ  Ñà ¸ àà  àœà h àA.›€€MOTION€FOR€NEW€TRIALó ó€€Ð  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€contends€that€his€attorneysðð€performance€was€deficientÏbecause€they€filed€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€too€late.€€He€claims€that€he€was€prejudicedÏby€their€deficiency€because€his€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€declared€a€nullity€by€thisÏœcourt,€and›€this€courtððs€review€on€direct€appeal€was€limited€to€ð ðapparent€errors€whichÏwould€result€in€dismissal€rather€than€a€new€trial.ðð€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Billy€Joe€Greenwoodóó,€No.Ð   Ð01C01„9108„CC„00228,€Overton€œCountyñ¥ ñ,€slip€op.€at€4ñ¥ ñ›€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€3,€1992).€ÏAlthough€the€petitioner€acknowledges€that€this€court€also€reviewed€the€jury€selectionÏissue€for€plain€error,€he€argues€that€his€attorneysðð€deficiency€foreclosed€the€possibility€ofÏa€new€trial€based€on€the€petitionerððs€jury€selection€issue.€€We€hold€that€althoughÏcounselððs€performance€was€deficient,€the€petitioner€has€not€proven€prejudice.ÌÌà ¸ àWe€believe€that€in€filing€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€too€late,€the€petitionerððsÏattorneysðð€performance€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€required€of€criminal€counsel.ÏIn€order€for€the€petitioner€to€prevail€on€an€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim,Ïthough,€the€petitioner€must€still€show€the€secondary€prong€of€prejudice.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€petitioner€had€not€been€prejudiced€because€this€court€was€still€able€toÏreview€his€case.€€On€direct€appeal,€this€court€noted,€ð ðWe€have€reviewed€the€defendantððsÏjury€selection€issue€for€plain€error;€we€find€none.ðð€€òòBilly€Joe€Greenwoodóó,€No.€01C01„Ð l'd $ Ð9108„CC„00228,€slip€op.€at€4.€€Thus,€even€though€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€deemedÏa€nullity,€petitionerððs€jury€selection€claim€was€not€precluded€from€review.€€Although€theÏpetitioner€argues€this€review€was€limited,€a€review€for€plain€error€does€not€necessarilyÏrender€the€proceedings€fundamentally€unfair.€€In€any€event,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏpetitionerððs€trial€attorneys€were€able€to€select€a€jury€and€that€the€petitioner€hadÏpresented€no€evidence€indicating€that€the€jury€was€œbiased€against€him.›€€The€recordÏdoes€not€preponderate€otherwise.ÌÌò òà@DD/DàˆÐ ˜706 Ðà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àB.€€DELAYED€APPEALÌó óà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ àØ Ðcounsel€because€his€attorneys€did€not€pursue€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÏthe€supreme€court€œñ  ñunderñ  ññ  ñ›pursuant›ñ  ññ£ ñ€toñ£ ñ›€Rule€11,€T.R.A.P.,€nor€did€they€move€to€withdraw€from€furtherÏrepresentation€œñ¡ ñpursuñ¡ ññ¢ ñant€toñ¢ ññ¡ ñ›underñ¡ ñ›€Supreme€Court€Rule€14.€€The€state€concedes€that€theÏattorneys€failed€to€give€the€proper€notice€of€withdrawal€œpursuant€to›€Rule€14€and€that€theÏpetitioner€should€be€granted€a€delayed€appeal.€€We€agree.ÌÌà ¸ àð ð[U]nilateral€termination€of€a€direct€appeal€following€first„tier€review€entitlesÏa€prospective€appellant€to€relief€in€the€form€of€a€delayed€appeal.ðð€€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668Ð @8 ÐS.W.2d€676,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€In€this€case,€the€petitionerððs€trial€attorneyÏtestified€that€he€and€the€petitionerððs€lead€attorney€determined€that€no€suitable€issues€forÏreview€by€the€supreme€court€existed.€€The€attorney€stated€that€he€believed€that€the€leadÏattorney€then€sent€a€letter€to€the€petitioner€notifying€him€that€they€were€not€going€to€takeÏthe€case€to€the€supreme€court.€€The€petitioner€testified€that€he€received€a€letter€from€theÏlead€attorney€stating€that€his€attorneys€were€œfinished›€with€his€case,€but€it€did€not€adviseÏhim€on€how€to€proceed.€€Nothing€in€the€record€indicates€that€the€petitionerððs€attorneysÏmoved€to€withdraw€from€representation€at€the€conclusion€of€the€direct€appeal.ÌÌà ¸ àSupreme€Court€Rule€14€sets€forth€the€minimum€requirements€necessaryÏto€protect€a€defendantððs€due€process€rights.€€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€653€S.W.2d€765,€767Ð +ü#( Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Inherent€in€Rule€14€is€our€supreme€courtððs€determination€thatÏthe€responsibility€falls€upon€the€attorney€of€record€to€preserve€a€defendantððs€right€toÏseek€further€review.€€Because€the€petitionerððs€attorneys€failed€to€comply€with€Rule€14,Ïwe€believe€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€seek€a€delayed€appeal.€Ô€X¶pXX Xœ±ÔÐ 42,+0 ÐÌÌÐ À7¸06 Ðò òà@%DàII.€JURY€INSTRUCTIONó óˆÐ  Ðà ¸ àThe€petitioner€also€contends€that€under€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€836€S.W.2d€530Ð èà Ð(Tenn.€1992),€the€trial€court€gave€an€unconstitutional€jury€instruction€on€premeditationÏbecause€it€instructed€the€jury€that€premeditation€could€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€Ô‡ Xl¿XXX7ÔInÐ ¨   ÐòòBrownóó,€our€supreme€court€held€that€trial€courts€should€not€instruct€a€jury€thatÐ Œ„ Ðpremeditation€can€be€formed€in€an€instant€because€of€the€risk€of€confusingÏpremeditation€with€deliberation,€which€cannot€be€formed€in€an€instant.€€òòId.óó€at€543.€€œTheÐ $  Ðcourt€did€not€hold€that€ñ£ ñòòóóñ£ ñthis›€type€of€œinstructionñš ñ€violated€a€constitutional€right.ñš ññ› ñ›€as›€potentially›€confusing,›€it›€did›€not›€ñ› ñÔ#†X7XX Xl¿$S#Ôñ› ñhold›€that›€it›€violated›€a›Ð ðè  Ðconstitutional›€right.ñ› ññœ ñ€€òòñœ ññ ñSeeóóñ ññ ññœ ñóóñœ ññ ññž ñ›€ñž ñ›€òòLoftonÐ ðè  Ðv.€Stateóó,€898€S.W.2d€246,€249„50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Post„conviction€relief€isÐ ÔÌ Ðavailable€only€when€the€conviction€or€sentence€is€void€or€voidable€due€to€theÏabridgment€of€a€constitutional€right.€€Because€the€petitionerððs€allegations€regarding€theÏjury€instruction€on€premeditation€do€not€raise€a€constitutional€violation,€he€is€not€entitledÏto€post„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarris€v.€Stateóó,€947€S.W.2d€156,€174€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð TL Ð1996).ÌÌà ¸ àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€denial€of€post„convictionÏrelief€as€to€the€allegations€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€œtoñ¤ ñ€timelyñ¤ ñ›€file€the€motion€for€aÏnew€œtrialñŸ ñ€timelyñŸ ñ›€and€that€the€jury€instruction€on€premeditation€was€unconstitutional.€€WeÏvacate€our€judgment€in€òòState€v.€Billy€Joe€Greenwoodóó,€No.€01C01„9108„CC„00228,Ð ”(Œ!$ ÐOverton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Mar.€3,€1992),€and€reinstate€it€as€of€the€date€of€theÏfiling€of€this€opinion.ÌÌÓÓÔ€X7XXX7Ôà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àÔ€X7XXX7Ôà È àà  àà x àà Ð àà (# à¼à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àà È à__________________________¼à ¸ àà  àÔ€ô1ªôXX7Ôà h àà À àà  àà p àà È àÔ€ô1ªôôô1ªÔÔ€X7Xôô1ªÔJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÐ ô1ì*. ÐÔ€X7XXX7ÔÌÔ€X7XXX7ÔÌÔ€X7XXX7ÔÌÐ  ´5¬.2 ÐCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ È À ÐJohn€H.€Peay,€JudgeÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ˆ€ ÐóóNorma€McGee€Ogle,€Judge