WPC-  # VU>a % 0 UB 4  n U:  w@ 0JB 0M 0D 0T 0^q 0h 0r7 0| 0% 0 1u; 0dU6 BJU.gU*B)DC AM+ D3x}( 0@v~7v AO 0D D/ B HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <( 9Z &Courier RegularX(W$X  7OXXd XXd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiԡ 3|x<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@,rAZ"Arial Regular EE eeӀ2 0Indent123  ((3$ W!X  7~fXXdd7    iUX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXi     0  (#$  0  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Courier New d<  9p`(Courier<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G$$$$'dxd s !  #d##   X   #d#  ` X  &&   YYY FILED&XSeptember19,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d##   X   #d#  ` X  $       &&ԀTheissueasphrasedbythepetitionerissogeneralthatitfailstomeetthepurposesforwhichastatementoftheissuesisrequired.Ordinarily,thefailurewouldconstituteawaiverofanyunderlyingissues.WecommendtocounselStatev.Williams,914S.W.2d940,947949(Tenn.Crim.App.1995),app.denied,(Tenn.1996),forfutureedificationabouttheimportanceofproperbriefing.("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   BA Op Geneva  BA Op Geneva -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . #   X   #%%Xd##%%Xd#  ` X     \RA'\&ԛ7  XXdXXd7ќL)+(;+'h|` - `Lߛ8 @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@   AUGUST1996SESSIONJONATHANA.HYLER,  ) ̀    ) Appellant,  ) No.01C019511CR00362    )    ) DavidsonCountyv.    )    ) Hon.ThomasH.Shriver,Judge    )STATEOFTENNESSEE, ) (PostConviction)    ) Appellee.  )    FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee:TerryJ.Canady    CharlesW.Burson211PrintersAlleyBuilding  AttorneyGeneralofTennesseeSuite400     andNashville,TN37201   WilliamDavidBridges     AssistantAttorneyGeneralofTennessee     450JamesRobertsonParkway  ̀     Nashville,TN372430493     VictorS.Johnson,III     DistrictAttorneyGeneral      and      JonSeaborg     AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral     WashingtonSquare     2222ndAvenueNorth     Nashville,TN372011649OPINIONFILED:____________________AFFIRMED,BUTDELAYEDAPPEALGRANTEDJosephM.TiptonJudge@  OPINION  Thepetitioner,JonathanA.Hyler,appealsasofrightfromtheDavidsonCountyCriminalCourtsdenyinghimpostconvictionrelieffromhis1989convictionsforonecountofaggravatedrapeandtwocountsofrapewithaneffectivesentenceofthirtyyears.SeeStatev.JonathanA.Hyler,No.01C019010CR00267,DavidsonCo.(Tenn.Crim.App.Sept.5,1991).Thepetitionerstatesthattheissueheraisesiswhetherthetrialcourterredindenyinghimpostconvictionreliefonthegroundofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel. ,   ׀Wegleanfromtheargumentportionofhisbriefthathisparticularcontentionsareasfollows:  8 (1)trialcounselwasineffectiveforfailuretoaddressthefactthatthevictimstestimonyindicatedthata911tapewouldhavebeenmade,butwasnotproduced;8 (2)appellatecounsel,retainedbeforethemotionfornewtrialwasdecided,wasineffectivebyfailingtopresentthe911tapeissue;8 (3)appellatecounselwasineffectivebyfailingtofileanapplicationforpermissiontoappealtotheTennesseeSupremeCourt.  Weconcludethatthepetitionerisnotentitledtoanyreliefwithrespecttohisfirsttwoissuesbutthatheisentitledtoadelayedappeal. Attheevidentiaryhearinginthiscase,thepetitionertestifiedregardingvariouscomplaintshehadagainsthistrialcounselandappellatecounsel.Asforthoserelatingtohisissuesonappeal,thepetitionerstatedthatthevictimclaimedtohavedialed911beforethetelephonewasknockedoutofherhand.Hesaidthathisattorneysneverlookedintothematterandthatiftheyhad,theywouldhavefoundthatsuchhadneveroccurred.Hetestifiedthathebelievedthatthesecircumstanceswerealsoevidenceoftheineffectivenessoftrialcounselthathisappellatecounselfailedtopursue,aswell. Also,thepetitionertestifiedthatafterthecourtofcriminalappealsaffirmedhisconviction,appellatecounseltoldhimthatanappealtotheTennesseeSupremeCourtwasbeingmade.Hesaidthatcounseltoldhimsomenineortenmonthslaterthattheappealwasdenied.Thepetitionertestifiedthatitwasonlyafterhesoughtfederalhabeascorpusreliefthathefoundthatanappealtothesupremecourtwasneversought.ThepetitionersfianceandanotherfriendtestifiedregardingeachofthemoverhearingappellatecounseltalktothepetitioneraboutthestatusofanappealtotheTennesseeSupremeCourt. Thepetitionersappellatecounseltestifiedaboutrepresentingthepetitionerforthenewtrialmotionandtheappeal.Hesaidhehadnumerousconversationswiththepetitionerandthatheattemptedtolitigateatthenewtrialmotionhearingtheissueoftheeffectivenessoftrialcounsel.Hedidnotrecallreviewingwiththepetitioneranyissueaboutthe911tapeandclaimedtohaveraisedalltheissuesthathethoughtneededtoberaisedonappeal.Asforthefailuretoseeksupremecourtreview,theappellatecounseladmittedthathehadnoexplanationforthefailureandthathetookfullresponsibilityforit. Thetrialcourtfoundthattheeffectiveassistanceoftrialcounselwasnotproperlybeforethecourtbecauseithadbeenpreviouslydeterminedinthedirectappeal.Also,itnotedthatnoactualprejudicewasshownrelativetothe911tapeissue.Finally,itfoundthattheonlymatterofconcernwasappellatecounselsfailuretoseekreviewbytheTennesseeSupremecourt,althoughitdidnotseeanyprejudiceflowingfromsuchafailure. Weconcludethattherecordsupportsthetrialcourtsfindings.Underthenexistinglaw,thefactthattheissueoftheeffectivenessoftrialcounselwasraisedanddecidedinthedirectappealbarredthetrialcourtfromreconsideringthatissuebecauseitwaspreviouslydetermined.SeeT.C.A.4030111and112(a).Totheextentthattheissueoftheeffectiveassistanceofappellatecounselremainedviable,therecordisdevoidofanyevidencethatcounselsactionsorfailuresprejudicedthepetitionerinanyway.Absentprejudice,counselsconductdoesnotamounttotheineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.SeeStricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,697,104S.Ct.2052,2069(1984). Ontheotherhand,unilateralterminationofanappealtothesupremecourtwithoutnoticetotheclienthasbeendeemedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.SeeMoultriev.State,542S.W.2d835,838(Tenn.Crim.App.1976).Also,Tennesseecaseshaveallowedfordelayedappealswithoutconsideringwhethertheissuestoberaisedhaveanymerit.SeePinkstonv.State,668S.W.2d676(Tenn.Crim.App.1984);Statev.Brown,653S.W.2d765(Tenn.Crim.App.1983);Statev.Hopson,589S.W.2d952(Tenn.Crim.App.1979);Campbellv.State,576S.W.2d591(Tenn.Crim.App.1978);Moultriev.State,supra.Infact,inthecontextofthefailuretopreservetherighttoseeksupremecourtreviewofthiscourtsopinion,webelievethatitwouldbeparticularlyinappropriateforeitheratrialcourtorthiscourttoassessthemeritsoforpredicttheoutcomeofaRule11,T.R.A.P.,applicationforpermissiontoappeal.Underthesecircumstances,weconcludethatthepetitionerwasdeprivedofseekingsecondtierreviewofhisconvictionthroughnofaultofhisown. Inconsiderationoftheforegoing,weaffirmthetrialcourtsdenyingthepetitionforpostconvictionreliefintermsofvacatinghisconvictions.However,therecorddemonstratesafactualbasistoallowthepetitionertoseekreviewbythesupremecourtonadelayedbasis.Wethereforevacateourjudgmentincasenumber01C019010CR00267,datedSeptember5,1991,andreinstateitasofthedateofreleaseofthisopinion.      ___________________________      JosephM.Tipton,JudgeCONCUR:____________________________JohnH.Peay,Judge____________________________DavidH.Welles,Judge