ÿWPCú .O^fðÊ“#Ó!e ŸÐ9 Xã…W[¥Îg×ÑÆ™<( Y’‰Ÿó r£ç|#ÛŠ¨tоÎ1Šázh…Ÿ®¬3{3ÑY9‹Ð#oç¡÷^³Þ¼øöfOóí&d  P—}þ=Ð Ä©PѱgKñ÷©ãÔá!|´HÆv%¢$›ê`¬ƒ`†¼.¨.&°®¼ä|@{‰ââ݉+9ÕÝ86c0,MÅ ÁÊ$cÐýHÓY;«¨õ[ÒÈô="<ɧª!=[b$ìÇš:·LÝ?`L q†GØâ̾N‰ªGb雇˜èfÌiänƒœÜÄGc\ɆDôö~I§XhÊ*§-C­ª~‹Ÿ¹ õæû³pP‹xž”z—è‹%ùycnýÝkl˜4/'Nò7û„Åqþ€‰¶ç 2òƒ®¡YG~Þc,ñ|¿S>„zÚuȽQ„¸s•%;ôL"¶{tç‡ {ÑÕMÐxzóìÄ_\`àè6©YÖ±b»á=\v¼‡$ Ù°Ôö¨ŠíUY½Da]S¾Ø¶ V,kZMÿì×üµä߆('û{n;…UBF %ˆ U.Ž ¼ nXÌ 0P$ 4t ˆ 0Ò 0cb w@Å U: U:? U:y ´³ ³ ³ ³  gU:‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡‡ BÁÁÁÁÁÁ D3ÞÞÞ 0D AOUƤ¤ 0Dj D/® BÝ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP((­À$¡¡ÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  Óƒƒ '(‚(2Lç$¤¤Ý ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€ô-òôXXÔÔ€ôdÞôôô-òÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ˆ$Ô€ X<=XXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó E   Ó€DDg"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ªÝ ƒ Lç$ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ômš ôXXÔÔ€ôs‰ô ôômšÔà œ àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝAlthough€the€trial€record€is€not€before€this€Court,€all€parties€appear€to€agree€that€the€petitionerÐ `  Ðwas€represented€by€different€attorneys€at€trial€than€on€appeal.€€According€to€documents€attached€to€theÏpetitionerððs€appellate€brief,€the€public€defenderððs€office€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial€on€the€petitionerððsÐ Ü | ž Ðbehalf,€but€a€supplemental€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed€by€a€private€attorney,€Jerry€Summers,€whoÏcontinued€to€represent€the€petitioner€on€appeal. Ô€XÌÁXXXÔÔ€îUŽîXXÌÁÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ëˆîîUŽÔÐ  ÐÌò òAugust€27,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôs‰ôëˆÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬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 ƒ­À!ÝÒD°ÒÒ¦°ÒÓ  ÓÝ  Ýññ›ññññññ›ññññññ›ññÑ` °ÑÑX°ÑÒPDÒÒŽ¦ÒÑ  ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÔ€XiÕXXXÔÑ7€ iÕ XXdðXXdð7Ññ ñœßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E2f  tt0"j` ¨Ørß›ñ ñà ¨ àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÐ `  ÐÌà@SS:MàAT€KNOXVILLE€ˆÌÌÓ  Óà@ll8MàJUNE€1999€SESSIONˆÌÌÌÌó óÌò òEDWARD€THOMAS€KENDRICKS,€III,à ` à)ó óÐ Ðp  Ðò òaliasà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àC.C.A.€NO.€03C01„9806„CR„00205Ð À`  ÐEDWARD€THOMAS€KENDRICK,€III,à ` à)Ð °P  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)Ìó óà ¨ àà àAppellant,ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHAMILTON€COUNTYÐ 0  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)ó óÐ €  ÐVS.à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àò ò)Ð p Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àHON.€STEPHEN€M.€BEVIL,Ð ` ÐSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àJUDGEÐ Pð Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó€ò òÐ @à Ðà ¨ àà àó óAppellee.ò òà ° àà  àà ` à)à ¸ àó ó(Post„Conviction)ò òÐ 0Ð Ðó óÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà ° àà  àà ` à€€€€€òòà ¸ àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÐ ð ÐÌÌò òEDWARD€T.€KENDRICKS,€IIIà  àà ` àà ¸ àPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÐ À!` Ðó óP.O.€Box€2000à X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÐ °"P ÐWartburg,€TN€37887Ìò òà ¨ àó ó(Pro€Se)ò òà X àó óà ° àò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àGEORGIA€BLYTHE€FELNERó óÐ $0 Ðò òà ¨ àà àà X àó óà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÐ €%  Ðò òà ¨ àó óà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJohn€Sevier€Bldg.Ð p& Ðò òà ¨ àà àà X àó óà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à425€Fifth€Ave.,€Northà ! àà p# à€€€€€€Ð `'  Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ìà ¨ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àññœññò òWILLIAM€H.€COX,€IIIó óññ›ññÐ 0*Ð # Ðà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌÌœññÌññññÌññ›à ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌœò òññREVERSEDññññAFFIRMEDññññ›€ññññ€ññIN›€œPARTññ;ññ›€œññREVERSED€IN€PART;Ð p5,/ ÐññAND›€REMANDEDó óÐ `6-0 ÐÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÐ 09Ð/3 ÐJudgeÌÐ  ;°15 ÐѰXÑÓ  Óà@™™:Màò òòòÔ‡¼wf ¼XXiÕÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ#†XiÕX ¼¼wfx#ԈР`  ÐÌÌó óóóÌÓÓà ¨ àà àA€jury€convicted€the€petitioner€of€the€first„degree€murder€of€his€wife,€whichÏthis€Court€affirmed.€€òòState€v.€Edward€Thomas€Kendricks,€IIIóó,€No.€03C01„9510„CR„00336,Ð &Æ ÐHamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€September€25,€1996,€at€Knoxville).€€In€AprilÏ1998,€the€petitioner€timely€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€By€written€order,€theÏpost„conviction€court€dismissed€the€petition€without€a€hearing,€finding€the€issues€raisedÏwere€either€waived€or€previously€determined.€€One€week€later,€the€petitioner€filed€anÏamended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€post„conviction€court€dismissed€theÏamended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€as€being€untimely€filed.€€On€appeal,€theÏpetitioner€argues€various€reasons€why€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€dismissing€hisÏpetition€without€first€allowing€him€to€amend€it€with€the€œaid›€of€counsel.€€Finding€some€meritÏto€the€petitionerððs€arguments,€we€reverse€the€post„conviction€courtððs€order€in€part€andÏremand€for€further€proceedings.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€the€post„conviction€courtððs€written€orderÏillustrates€that€the€court€erred€in€dismissing€his€petition€without€allowing€for€anÏamendment.€€In€the€order€dismissing€the€original€petition,€the€post„conviction€courtÏacknowledged€that€the€petitioner€attached€to€and€incorporated€in€his€petition€a€documentÏtitled€ð ðmemorandum€of€law,ðð€stating€that€the€memorandum€ð ðin€substance€appears€to€beÏmore€of€a€general€recitation€of€his€allegations€rather€than€a€Memorandum€of€Law.ðð€€AÏreview€of€the€ð ðmemorandum€of€lawðð€reveals€that€it€is€in€fact€more€of€a€detailed€recitationÏof€the€underlying€facts€and€allegations,€as€required€by€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,Ïrather€than€a€memorandum€of€law€containing€legal€argument€and€citation.€€We€fail€toÏunderstand€how€the€trial€courtððs€characterization€of€the€ð ðmemorandum€of€lawðð€illustratesÏerror€in€dismissing€the€petition.ÌÐ F:æ04 Ðà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€dismissingÏhis€amended€petition€as€untimely€filed.€€The€petitioner€refers€to€a€document€in€the€recordÏentitled€ð ðMotion€for€Extension€of€Time€to€File€Amended€Petitionðð€and€claims€that€if€hisÏmotion€had€been€granted,€then€his€amended€petition,€which€was€filed€one€week€after€theÏcourtððs€dismissal€of€his€original€petition,€would€have€been€timely€filed.€€Although€theÏpetitioner€appears€to€assume€he€was€entitled€to€an€extension€of€time€to€file€an€amendedÏpetition€simply€by€filing€a€motion€for€extension€of€time,€the€record€does€not€contain€anÏorder€disposing€of€his€motion,€thus€indicating€that€he€waived€his€request€for€an€extensionÏby€failing€to€secure€a€ruling€on€his€motion.€€òòSeeóó€òòNashville€Chattanooga€&€St.€Louis€Ry.Ð ` Ðv.€Hayesóó,€117€Tenn.€680,€99€S.W.€362,€366€(1907)(it€is€the€movantððs€duty€to€ensure€œñ ñthat€›hisÐ À` Лor€›her€›motions€›are€›ruled€›uponñ ññ ñaÐ @à Ðrulingñ ñ).›€€Without€an€extension€of€time,€the€post„conviction€court€was€within€its€authority€toÏrule€upon€the€petitionerððs€original€petition.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„206.€€When€the€courtÐ   Ðdismissed€the€original€petition,€the€petitionerððs€remedy€was€to€appeal€the€dismissal,€notÏfile€an€amended€petition.€€Because€the€petitionerððs€attempt€to€amend€his€petition€followedÏthe€post„conviction€courtððs€dismissal€of€his€original€petition,€the€post„conviction€courtÏproperly€dismissed€the€petitionerððs€amended€petition€as€untimely.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner€also€complains€that€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€merits€of€hisÏoriginal€petition€without€a€hearing.€€In€his€original€petition€and€attached€ð ðmemorandum€ofÏlaw,ðð€the€petitioner€alleged€various€instances€of€trial€court€errors€and€prosecutorialÏmisconduct.€€The€petitioner€alleged€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€for€variousÏomissions€and€errors€committed€during€trial€by€his€trial€attorney,€an€assistant€publicÏdefender.€€The€petitioner€further€alleged€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€to€theÏextent€that€some€potential€issues€were€not€raised€in€his€motion€for€new€trial,€whichÏapparently€was€filed€by€a€different€attorney.׃×Ý ƒ ˆÝÔ€ XÌÁXXXiÕÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€To€the€extent€that€some€issues€were€notÐ `6-0 Ðraised€on€direct€appeal,€the€petitioner€also€alleged€ineffective€assistance€of€appellateÏcounsel.€€In€ruling€on€the€petition,€the€post„conviction€court€found€that€all€allegations€wereÏeither€waived€or€previously€determined€on€direct€appeal.ÌÌà ¨ àà àA€post„conviction€court€shall€dismiss€any€petition€for€post„conviction€reliefÏthat€claims€relief€for€issues€that€have€been€waived€or€previously€determined.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„¼30„206(f).€€Section€40„30„206€defines€ð ðwaivedðð€and€ð ðpreviously€determinedðð€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 ¨ àà à(g)€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€if€the€petitioner€personally€or€throughÏan€attorney€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€any€proceeding€beforeÏa€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€beenÏpresented€unless:Ð ¨ ò"¨ ò" Ðà8 ¨ àà8 ¨ ò"¨ ò"àà X à(1)€The€claim€for€relief€is€based€upon€a€constitutionalÏright€not€recognized€as€existing€at€the€time€of€trial€if€either€theÏfederal€or€state€constitution€requires€retroactive€application€ofÏthat€right;€orÐ  š š  Ðà8 ¨ àà8 ¨ ò"¨ ò"àà X à(2)€The€failure€to€present€the€ground€was€the€result€ofÏstate€action€in€violation€of€the€federal€or€state€constitution.Ð  š š  ÐÌà8 ¨ àà à(h)€A€ground€for€relief€is€previously€determined€if€a€court€ofÏcompetent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€on€the€merits€after€a€full€and€fair€hearing.€ÏA€full€and€fair€hearing€has€occurred€where€the€petitioner€is€afforded€theÏopportunity€to€call€witnesses€and€otherwise€present€evidence,€regardlessÏof€whether€the€petitioner€actually€introduced€any€evidence.Ó”#ÓÐ ¨ ò"¨ ò" ÐT.C.A.€ðð€40„30„206(g)„(h).ÌÌà ¨ àà à€The€record€shows€that€some€of€the€issues€raised€by€the€petitioner€wereÏpreviously€determined€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal.€€Those€issues€raised€by€theÏpetitioner€that€were€previously€determined€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal€were€properlyÏdismissed€without€a€hearing.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„206(f),€(h).Ð 6.Ö$) ÐÌà ¨ àà àA€more€difficult€question€arises€with€regard€to€whether€the€post„convictionÏcourt€properly€dismissed€the€remaining€issues€on€the€ground€they€were€waived.€€TheÏpost„conviction€court€stated€in€its€order€that€some€of€the€issues€raised€in€the€petition€wereÏwaived€because€the€petitioner,€ð ðthrough€his€attorney,€failed€to€present€[them]€forÐ 27Ò-3 Ðdetermination€in€the€appeal€of€this€matter.ðð€€The€post„conviction€court€concluded,€ð ðSinceÏthe€petitioner€had€separate€counsel€on€the€appeal€than€he€had€during€the€course€of€theÏtrial,€the€issues€as€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€either€were€or€could€have€beenÏraised€on€appeal.ððÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€petitioner€alleged€various€instances€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏappellate€counsel.€€The€facts€alleged,€when€taken€as€true,€raise€potential€grounds€forÏpost„conviction€relief.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„203.€€Thus,€due€process€requires€that€theÐ ô”  Ðpetitioner€be€afforded€the€opportunity€to€prove€his€contentions.€€òòSeeóó€òòWaite€v.€Stateóó,€948Ð À` ÐS.W.2d€283,€285€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997).€€Accordingly,€the€post„conviction€court€erredÏin€dismissing€the€petitionerððs€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel€underÏðð€40„30„206.ÌÌà ¨ àà àMoreover,€we€have€previously€warned€defendants€and€their€counsel€of€theÏdangers€of€raising€the€issue€of€ineffective€assistance€of€trial€counsel€on€direct€appealÏbecause€of€the€significant€of€amount€of€development€and€œfactfinding›€such€an€issueÏentails.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€William€E.€Breweróó,€No.€02C01„9710„CC„00400,€Benton€CountyÐ  &À  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€October€28,€1998,€at€Jackson);€òòState€v.€Robert€Wayne€œFrantz›,€Jr.óó,Ð ì'Œ" ÐNo.€03C01-9509-CC-00269,€Sevier€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€February€6,€1998,€atÏKnoxville);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòThompson€v.€Stateóó,€958€S.W.2d€156€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1997);€€òòStateÐ „+$"& Ðv.€Jimmy€L.€Sluderóó,€No.€1236,€Knox€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€March€14,€1990,€atÐ P-ð#( ÐKnoxville).€€€Given€this,€we€do€not€believe€the€Legislature€intended€the€issue€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€appellate€counsel€to€be€waived€if€not€raised€on€direct€appeal.€€Thus,€weÏconclude€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€holding€that€the€petitionerððs€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€claims€were€barred€for€failure€to€raise€them€on€direct€appeal.ÌÌà ¨ àà àEven€if€the€Legislature€did€intend€for€claims€of€ineffective€assistance€ofÏcounsel€to€be€waived€if€not€raised€on€direct€appeal,€the€petitionerððs€claims€are€not€waivedÐ ä9„06 Ðunder€the€circumstances€of€this€case.€€Here,€the€petitioner€has€alleged€ineffectiveÏœñ ñassistance€ñ ñof›€counsel€for€failing€to€raise€a€myriad€of€issues€in€his€motion€for€new€trial€andÏon€direct€appeal.€€If€the€petitionerððs€allegations€are€taken€as€true,€the€failure€to€raise€anyÏpotential€ground€for€relief€is€attributable€to€counselððs€incompetence,€not€the€petitionerððsÏwaiver.€€Thus,€any€failure€to€raise€these€issues€cannot€be€considered€a€valid€waiver€underÏðð€40„30„206(g).ÌÌà ¨ àà àIn€sum,€the€post„conviction€court€properly€dismissed€those€issues€that€wereÏpreviously€determined€by€this€Court€on€direct€appeal.€€However,€the€allegations€regardingÏineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€preparing€the€motion€for€new€trial€and€on€appealÏshould€not€have€been€summarily€dismissed.€€Although€the€petitionerððs€allegations€may€beÏexceedingly€difficult€to€prove,€he€should€at€least€be€afforded€the€opportunity€to€do€so.€€òòSeeóóÐ $Ä ÐòòWaiteóó,€948€S.W.2d€at€285.€€This€includes,€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„207,€theÐ ð Ðappointment€of€counsel€(assuming€the€petitioner€is€indigent)€and€the€opportunity€toÏamend€his€petition.ÌÌà ¨ àà àThe€post„conviction€courtððs€order€is€reversed€in€part€and€this€case€remandedÏfor€further€proceedings.€€Given€this€disposition,€the€petitionerððs€remaining€issues€onÏappeal€are€moot.ÌÌÌÓÓà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ à_______________________________Ìà ¨ àà àà X àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÐ ä9„06 Ð______________________________ÌJOHN€EVERETT€WILLIAMS,€Judge