ÿWPC%" Äôè¶;Í¢Õåâ4Õ*¾>W‘ѾÁޏúq£._UÕØg˜C–?•ŒIo.°Ê-›U°£”&Ñ/Úú Öñ†å¢Y\wäÙcF~ì¥K>rBÙ×ý˜Xrà›Ñ¾+»IZvÁ¨^ˆ:¡ $|nw {^Õ)§ @¶ÓfÉÀŸ?¾²~î`>|Ø£G¥2ˆ×É-3ü4q+YÍõJáN1AGCîÝ %ãý:†l¡§ØÜš.‘Þ¼G[à:¡0^u¡­<*zͬ§"ò{Š|ëÎRÊ7ß=ß›YÇ:ž?¤}ÏFÞ0žð)¢™—G«ìÝQ­Ì¿UÓið}TôO•¼ùWálU4F440r˜ÓN ¥~èÇPŒ]ì¶â6_*JÖØZ4¸ÒÝÌðјÍÍÇŸ/^Æß§ .x"|× ØÇ8°Zˈbj"%8èò:4núSõtÈUromB‘ -è£2®æ±Ú{½‹1 ÷y‡ÎsëéûU•”]ßóá/ÝÎy´M"Uøá¿=¶Z…Ë.Š€³  ¥ìÏRq)FgÙ«_ê¤]2ᬪ7GQzú_Ò´üQÆúãß¼SRóÖŽŠµ–ÛŸ°Ì»ÿb'ÓÌH‡42ÚÄ ¤}¹½¢9Tœã&‡ Îî¿ IâbUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ# 1éNv 0 cx 0DÛE!!ÕBR 1ui 72ÞÞÞÞÞÞÞb 0ë     B   0¤( D5Ì D- 0K.. ASyÆÌ 0¤’ 0D6! A«z!(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Óé©u)â fdJ)È· Ì’¬3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 5Ü,,,,Ü0(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(¶éCEMU]emu}AutoList1(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(A)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒRHC$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·E ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÂoò òô·EÔThe€following€excerpts€from€the€letters€illustrate€the€exchanges€between€the€Appellant€and€his€co„defendant:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àCo„defendant:à8¸ Ð Ð àSo€man,€not€forcing€you€into€any€hole,€but€you€can€take€it€and€IÐ @ Ðcan€give€you€the€money€after€hitting€the€streets...òòItððs€like€this,€the€Ð T Ðshit€was€in€my€hand€but€it€wasnððt€when€they€found€it.óó..when€I€getÐ È Ðout,€because€like€you€said,€both€of€us€donððt€need€to€go€down€forÐ ŒÜ Ðthis...all€I€have€to€do€is€lay€here€and€wait€until€trial€time€and€sayÐ P   ÐI€was€a€passenger€and€I€didnððt€have€any€means€of€knowing€aboutÐ  d Ðthe€drugs.ÐØ (¸ ¸  Ðà8  àAppellant:à8¸ Ð Ð àYou€told€me€that€you€was€going€to€turn€me€a€lose,€and€man€I€hadÐ œ ì  Ðmy€mine€(sic)€set€on€that€too...man,€like€I€said€man€you€going€toÐ ` °  Ðhave€both€of€us€going€down...you€said€you€was€(sic)€going€to€cutÐ $ t  Ðme€Ô_ÔaloseÔ_Ô€(sic).Ðè 8 ¸ ¸  Ðà8  àCo„defendant:à8¸ Ð Ð àThe€lawyers€I€talk€to€said€I€had€a€better€chance€of€winning€this€Ð ¬ü  Ðshit€than€you.€€So€letððs€put€you€in€my€shoes€if€you€had€a€betterÐ pÀ  Ðchance€on€winning€this€shit€would€you€cope€(sic)€out? ËÝ ƒRHC$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·E ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÂoò òô·EÔPost„conviction€counsel€argues€that€the€letters€could€have€been€admitted€into€evidence€as€a€statement€againstÐ ° Ðinterest€if€a€severance€had€been€obtained€because€the€co„defendant€would€have€taken€the€5òòthóó€Amendment,€making€himÐ |Ì Ðunavailable.€€Although€counselððs€basis€for€admission€is€proper,€his€argument€fails€to€consider€that€only€òòself„inculpatoryÐ @ Ðstatementsóó€made€by€the€declarant€are€admissible.€€Other€than€the€one€inculpatory€statement€by€the€co„defendant,€whichÐ T Ðis€identified€above,€the€remaining€contents€of€the€letters€sought€to€be€introduced€suggest€joint€criminal€responsibilityÐ È Ðwhich€clearly€€would€not€have€benefitted€the€appellant.€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€804(b)(3)€does€not€allow€admission€of€non„self„Ð ŒÜ Ðinculpatory€statements,€even€if€they€are€made€within€a€broader€narrative€that€is€generally€self„inculpatory.€€òòCohenóó€òòet€al.,óóÐ P   ÐòòTennessee€Law€of€Evidenceóó€ðð€804(b)(3).3,€(3òòrdóó€ed.€1995).€€€ HÝ ƒRHC$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô·E ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ ôÂoò òô·EÔIn€order€to€find€counsel€ineffective,€both€deficiency€and€prejudice€must€be€shown.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,Ð ° Ð466€U.S.€at€686,€104€S.Ct.€at€2064.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - ù-(|G2HC$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¦Åò»»Ô d(|3$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Á-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€À}»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼À}»»»ÔÑ8€Æ XXdð»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î–þÀ}ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼À}»îî–þ #ԈРÜ, ÐÓ  Óà @ àAssigned€on€Briefs€à @` àSeptember€12,€2000Ð X ÐÔ‡XÆ X»¼À}ÔÌò òÔ#†¼À}»XXÆ !#ÔJOHNNY€BERNARD€JONESòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XÆ X»¼À}Ôó óÐ  ` ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Ô_ÔFayetteÔ_Ô€CountyÐ  h Ðà@@øøìàNo.€4504à0 @ à€€€€Jon€Kerry€Blackwood,€JudgeÐ  X ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<×` AßÐ Ø(  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2000„01241„CCA„R3„PC€„€Decided€November€9,€2000Ð ×'  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<¶` AßÐ ·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ X2ÛXXXÆ ÔThis€appeal€follows€dismissal€of€the€Appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€The€Appellant,Ð ¶ ÐJones,€was€convicted€by€a€Ô_ÔFayetteÔ_Ô€County€jury€of€possession€of€cocaine€(over€26€grams)€with€intentÐ ¢ò Ðto€sell€and€possession€of€marijuana.€€On€direct€appeal,€his€convictions€and€sentences€were€affirmed.€Ð ŽÞ ÐThe€Appellant€filed€this€post„conviction€petition€asserting€the€following€errors:€€€(1)€the€trial€courtÐ zÊ Ðerred€in€not€granting€the€Appellantððs€motion€to€sever;€(2)€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€theÐ f¶ ÐAppellant;€and€(3)€deficient€representation€by€defense€counsel€including€failing€to€timely€file€a€RuleÐ R¢ Ð11€application€to€the€supreme€court€from€this€courtððs€decision.€€We€find€that€Appellantððs€defenseÐ >Ž Ðcounsel€was€ineffective€with€respect€to€his€failure€to€timely€file€a€Rule€11€application.€€Accordingly,Ð *z Ðthe€Appellant€is€granted€the€right€to€seek€a€delayed€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€DenialÐ f Ðof€post„conviction€relief€is€affirmed€as€to€the€remaining€issues.Ð R ÐÔ#†XÆ XX X2ÛÚ#ÔÔ#†¼À}»XXÆ #ÔÔ‡XÆ X»¼À}ÔÌÓÎÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Affirmed;€Delayed€Appeal€Granted.ó óÐ Î ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼À}»àXÆ  #ÔÔ‡XÆ X.¼À}ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€and€òòThomasÐ ®þ ÐT.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined.Ð ž î ÐÌWilliam€S.€Rhea,€Somerville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Johnny€Bernard€Jones.Ð ~"Î! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter,€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General,€Kim€R.Ð ^$®# ÐHelper,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Elizabeth€T.€Riche,€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€Appellee,Ð N%ž $ ÐState€of€Tennessee.Ð >&Ž!% ÐÔ#†¼À}»XXÆ Õ #ÔÔ‡XÆ X»¼À}ÔÌÓ¦ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼À}»XXÆ { #ÔÔ‡XÆ X»¼À}ÔÐ )^$( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼À}»XXÆ î #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÆ X»¼À}ÔÌÔ‡ X2ÛXXXÆ Ôà  àThe€Appellant,€Johnny€Bernard€Jones,€appeals€the€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„convictionÐ Þ+.'+ Ðrelief€by€the€Ô_ÔFayetteÔ_Ô€County€Circuit€Court.€€A€jury€convicted€him€of€possession€of€cocaine€(over€26Ð Ê,(, Ðgrams)€with€intent€to€sell€and€possession€of€marijuana.€€The€trial€judge€sentenced€the€Appellant€toÐ ¶-)-ý÷ Ðtwenty€years€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€His€conviction€was€affirmed€on€direct€appeal€to€this€court.€€òòSeeÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔóóòòState€v.€Johnny€Benard€Jones€and€Clifford€Lavern€Mitchellóó,€No.€02C01„901ð!ðCC„00026€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð œì ÐApp.€at€Jackson,€Dec.€21,€1998).€€The€Appellant€filed€a€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€post„conviction€relief€inÐ ˆØ ÐJuly€1999.€€Following€a€hearing€on€the€merits,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€the€AppellantððsÐ tÄ Ðpetition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€From€this€denial,€the€Appellant€now€appeals€as€of€right€assertingÐ `° Ðthe€following€errors€at€trial:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  à(1)€The€Appellant€received€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel:Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÓ€ (¶é83ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£ÂÝÔ2¶éÔ(Ú  ÚAÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝDefense€counsel€failed€to€timely€file€a€Rule€11€application€toÐ  ` Ðthe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court;€Ýƒ3£ÂÝŒÐü L ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£$ÝÔ2¶éÔ(Ú  ÚBÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝDefense€counsel€failed€to€introduce€into€evidence€criticalÐ è 8  Ðletters€regarding€the€co„defendantððs€admission€againstÐ Ô$  Ðinterest;݃3£$qÝŒÐÀ ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£¼ÝÔ2¶éÔ(Ú  ÚCÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝThe€defense€counsel€failed€to€file€a€Rule€9€interlocutoryÐ ¬ü  Ðappeal;€Ýƒ3£¼ ÝŒÐ˜è ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  ÝÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÝ‚3£ÝÔ2¶éÔ(Ú  ÚDÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` x` xàÝ  ÝDefense€counsel€coerced€the€Appellant€into€not€testifying€atÐ „Ô  Ðtrial;݃3£QÝŒÐpÀ¸ x¸ x ÐŒÝ  Ýà8  àà8` Ð Ð àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  à(2)€The€trial€court€erred€by€denying€the€Appellantððs€motions€for€severance;€andÐH˜Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à(3)€The€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€the€Appellant.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌAfter€reviewing€the€record,€we€affirm€the€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€However,€we€findÐ øH Ðdefense€counselððs€failure€to€timely€file€a€Rule€11€application€to€constitute€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ ä4 Ðcounsel.€€Accordingly,€the€Appellant€is€granted€a€delayed€appeal€of€his€original€conviction€to€theÐ Ð  ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court.Ð ¼  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓI.€€Ineffective€Assistance€of€CounselÐ ”ä Ðó óÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€his€petition€for€post„convictionÐ l¼ Ðrelief€and€in€finding€that€he€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Since€Appellantððs€petition€wasÐ X ¨ Ðfiled€in€July€of€1999,€it€is€governed€by€the€provisions€of€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€Ð D!” ÐThus,€at€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€Appellant€bears€the€burden€of€establishing€his€allegationsÐ 0"€  Ðcontained€in€the€petition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„30„210(f)(1997).€Ð #l! ÐFindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€made€by€a€post„conviction€court€are€given€the€weight€of€aÐ $X" Ðjury€verdict.€€òòDavis€v.€Stateóó,€912€S.W.2d€689,€697€(Tenn.€1995).€€Unless€evidence€contained€in€theÐ ô$D # Ðrecord€preponderates€against€the€judgment,€this€court€is€bound€by€those€findings€on€appeal.€€òòId.óó€€ThisÐ à%0!$ Ðcourt€may€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€the€evidence€or€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€theÐ Ì&"% Ðtrial€court.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€The€issues€of€deficientÐ ¸'#& Ðperformance€by€counsel€and€possible€prejudice€to€the€defense€are€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact;Ð ¤(ô#' Ðthus,€our€review€of€this€case€is€òòde€novoóó.€€€òòState€v.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€453,€461€(Tenn.€1999).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àFurthermore,€to€succeed€in€a€challenge€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€AppellantÐ ° Ðâ âmust€demonstrate€that€counselððs€representation€fell€below€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÐ œì Ðattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€Under€òòStricklandÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€686,€104€S.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984),€the€Appellant€must€establish€(1)Ð tÄ Ðdeficient€representation€and€(2)€prejudice€resulting€from€the€deficiency.€òòÐ `° Ðóóò òÓ  ÓÌA.€€Delayed€AppealÐ 8 ˆ ÐÓ  Óó óà  àFirst,€we€address€the€Appellantððs€right€to€a€delayed€appeal.€€The€Appellant€contends€thatÐ $ t Ðdefense€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€failed€to€timely€apply€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÐ  ` ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11,€from€this€courtððs€affirmance€of€hisÐ ü L  Ðconviction€and€sentence.€€The€Appellantððs€defense€counsel,€Andrew€Johnston,€filed€the€applicationÐ è 8  Ðone€day€late.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Johnston€testified€that€he€ð ðmiscalculated€the€days€byÐ Ô$  Ðone€day.ðð€€Johnston€further€testified€that€he€submitted€an€affidavit€with€the€Rule€11€applicationÐ À  Ðindicating€that€it€was€solely€his€fault€that€the€application€was€not€timely€filed.€€Additionally,€JohnstonÐ ¬ü  Ðinformed€the€Appellant€that€he€should€raise€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€a€post„convictionÐ ˜è  Ðproceeding€if€the€supreme€court€denied€his€Rule€11€application€because€it€was€not€timely€filed.€€TheÐ „Ô  ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€later€denied€the€appellantððs€Rule€11€application.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àPursuant€to€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2d€676,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòperm.€to€appealÐ H˜ Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.€1984),€this€court€provided€that,€ð ðunilateral€termination€of€a€direct€appeal€followingÐ 4„ Ðfirst„tier€review€entitles€a€prospective€appellant€to€relief€in€the€form€of€a€delayed€appeal.ðð€€òòSee€alsoÐ  p ÐóóòòGibson€v.€Stateóó,€7€S.W.3d€47,€49€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).€€The€minimum€requirements€to€assureÐ  \ Ðthat€an€Appellantððs€due€process€rights€are€protected€on€appeal€are€defined€in€Rule€14,€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.Ð øH ÐR.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Brownóó,€653€S.W.2d€765,€766„67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).òòóóÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€court€denied€the€Appellantððs€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€findingÐ ¼  Ðthat€ð ðthe€defendant€was€not€denied€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.ðð€€The€court€further€found€thatÐ ¨ø Ðthe€Appellantððs€defense€counsel€ð ðdid€his€job€in€giving€him€good,€sound€legal€adviceðð€and€ð ðdid€moreÐ ”ä Ðthan€an€ample€job€of€keeping€his€client€informed€as€to€the€current€status€of€the€case.ðð€€However,€withÐ €Ð Ðrespect€to€the€Rule€11€application,€the€post„conviction€court€granted€ð ðthe€petitioner€the€right€to€makeÐ l¼ Ðthat€application.ðð€€Although€finding€a€factual€basis€for€relief,€the€post„conviction€court€opined€thatÐ X ¨ Ðit€lacked€the€authority€to€vacate€and€reinstate€the€court€of€criminal€appealððs€judgment€in€order€toÐ D!” Ðpermit€a€timely€filing.€€Specifically,€the€post„conviction€court€held:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àLastly,€petitioner€asserts€that€there€was€a€late€filing€for€a€Rule€11€application€to€theÐ $X" ÐSupreme€Court€for€permission€to€appeal.€€This€issue€does€have€merit,€in€that€theÐ ô$D # Ðapplication€was€filed€one€day€late,€through€no€fault€of€the€defendant.€€However,Ð à%0!$ Ðaccording€to€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2d€776€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€the€CourtÐ Ì&"% Ðis€unable€to€grant€permission€to€the€defendant€for€a€delayed€application€to€appeal€toÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€Supreme€Court.€€According€to€òòPinkstonóó,€the€trial€court€has€no€authority€to€grantÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrelief€directly,€because€only€the€Appellate€Court€can€vacate€and€reinstate€its€ownÐ )à$( Ðjudgment.€€The€court€in€òòPinkstonóó€goes€on€to€reiterate€that€the€petitioner€would€be€ableÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€appeal€that€judgment€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.Ðh+¸&*Ð Ð  ЇWhile€the€trial€courtððs€position€was€correct€under€prior€law,€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€ActÐ ° Ðexpressly€provides€the€trial€courts€with€the€authority€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal€for€second€tierÐ œì Ðappellate€review.€€òòSee€óóòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„30„213(a)(1997);€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€28€ðð€9(D).€€òòSeeÐ ˆØ Ðalso€óóòòGibson€v.€Stateóó,€7€S.W.2d€at€49.€€The€State€concedes€the€Appellant€is€entitled€to€the€reliefÐ tÄ Ðsought.€€Accordingly,€the€Appellant€should€be€allowed€to€seek€review€by€the€supreme€court€on€aÐ `° Ðdelayed€basis.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àFrom€a€procedural€aspect,€we€note€that€the€Appellant€seeks€relief€in€two€different€directions:€Ð $ t Ð(1)€from€the€supreme€court€for€second€tier€appellate€review€of€his€original€conviction€and€(2)€for€aÐ  ` Ðnew€trial€pursuant€to€post„conviction€relief.€€Our€ruling€in€this€case€will€have€the€effect€of€permittingÐ ü L  Ðtwo€appeals€to€be€entertained€at€the€same€time,€òòi.e.óó,€a€Rule€11€application€to€appeal€from€the€originalÐ è 8  Ðconviction€and€a€Rule€11€application€for€permission€to€appeal€from€our€ruling€denying€post„Ð Ô$  Ðconviction€relief.€€A€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€complaining€of€the€original€conviction€andÐ À  Ðsentence,€may€not€be€maintained€while€a€direct€appeal€of€the€same€conviction€and€sentence€is€beingÐ ¬ü  Ðprosecuted.€€òòSee€óóòòLaney€v.€Stateóó,€826€S.W.2d€117,€118€(Tenn.€1982);€òòJones€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.Ð ˜è  ÐApp.€284,€453€S.W.2d€695€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970);€òòCrain€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.Ð „Ô  ÐCrim.€App.€67,€451€S.W.2d€695€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€1970);€òòHunter€v.€Stateóó,€1Ð pÀ ÐTenn.€Crim.€App.€392,€443€S.W.2d€532€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.),€òòcert.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1969).€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,Ð \¬ ÐòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„30„202(a)€and€(c)(1997).€€Because€a€post„conviction€petition€may€not€beÐ H˜ Ðfiled€until€the€final€judgment€of€the€highest€court€has€been€entered,€òòsee€óóòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„30„Ð 4„ Ð202,€the€instant€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€prematurely€and€should€have€beenÐ  p Ðdismissed€accordingly.€€Moreover,€if€the€Appellantððs€Rule€11€application€for€permission€to€appealÐ  \ Ðfrom€his€original€conviction€is€granted€and€the€ultimate€holding€by€the€supreme€court€is€favorableÐ øH Ðto€the€appellant,€this€courtððs€time€has€been€wasted€on€an€appellate€issue€which€is€rendered€moot.€€òòSeeÐ ä4 ÐóóòòLaneyóó,€826€S.W.2d€at€118.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€those€situations€where€an€appellant€seeks€post„conviction€relief€both€in€the€form€of€a€newÐ ¨ø Ðtrial€and€a€delayed€appeal,€we€believe€the€better€procedure€is€for€the€trial€court€to€grant€the€delayedÐ ”ä Ðappeal,€when€warranted,€and€dismiss€the€collateral€attack€upon€the€conviction€without€prejudice.€€WeÐ €Ð Ðare€cognizant€of€the€statutory€provision€which€contemplates€the€filing€of€only€one€petition€for€post„Ð l¼ Ðconviction€relief€from€a€single€judgment.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„30„202(c).€€This€statute€providesÐ X ¨ Ðif€a€petition€has€been€resolved€on€its€merits,€a€subsequent€petition€must€be€summarily€dismissed.€Ð D!” ÐòòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ððððÔ#†XÆ XX X2Ûx#ÔÔ‡ X2ÛXXXÆ Ô€40„30„202(c);€40„30„206(b).€€Conversely,€we€interpret€this€to€mean€that€thoseÐ 0"€  Ðpetitions€not€resolved€on€their€merits€are€not€subject€to€dismissal.€€€€This€procedure€would€allow€theÐ #l! ÐAppellant€to€pursue€his€post„conviction€relief€after€review€from€the€supreme€court.€€The€order€of€theÐ $X" Ðsupreme€court€denying€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€11€shall€be€deemedÐ ô$D # Ða€final€judgment€and€the€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€must€be€filed€within€one€year€of€the€dateÐ à%0!$ Ðof€this€order;€otherwise,€the€petition€is€barred.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„30„202.€€However,€due€to€theÐ Ì&"% Ðposture€of€the€Appellantððs€appeal€before€this€court€seeking€redress€in€the€form€of€a€delayed€appeal€Ð ¸'#& Ðand€a€new€trial,€we€have€elected€to€address€each€of€these€issues€in€turn.ò òÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  ÓB.€€LettersÐ ° Ðó óÓ  Óà  àAgain,€the€Appellant€contends€he€was€denied€effective€assistance€of€counsel€because€defenseÐ œì Ðcounsel€ð ðfailed€to€move€for€severance€based€on€the€presence€of€the€letters.ðð€€The€Appellant€refers€toÐ ˆØ Ðletters€written€between€him€and€his€co„defendant€while€both€were€€incarcerated€prior€to€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ tÄ ÐAppellant€argues€that€the€co„defendant's€letters€ð ðimplicate€the€co„defendant€as€the€guilty€partyðð€andÐ `° Ðfurther€show€that€the€co„defendant€was€trying€to€get€the€Appellant€to€assume€total€responsibility€forÐ L œ Ðthe€crimes.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€note€that€Appellantððs€argument€is€flawed€because€counsel€did,€in€fact,€argue€aÐ  ` Ðmotion€to€sever€which€was€based,€in€part,€upon€the€letters.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€defenseÐ ü L  Ðcounsel€explained€that€he€argued€the€existence€of€the€letters,€their€relevance,€and€the€legal€reasonsÐ è 8  Ðwhy€a€severance€was€needed€to€the€trial€court.€€The€trial€court€denied€his€motion.€€Consequently,€theÐ Ô$  ÐAppellant€has€failed€to€meet€his€burden€of€proving€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence€that€counselÐ À  Ðwas€deficient€in€his€efforts.€€Furthermore,€upon€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€of€the€five€lettersÐ ¬ü  Ðwritten€to€the€Appellant€by€the€co„defendant,€only€one€portion€of€one€letter€would€have€beenÐ ˜è  Ðadmissible,€that€letter€containing€the€statement:€ð ðThe€shit€was€in€my€hand€but€it€wasnððt€when€theyÐ „Ô  Ðfound€it.ðð€×ƒØ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€conclude€that€counselððs€failure€to€include€this€statement€did€not€prejudice€the€defenseÐ pÀ Ðâ âÐ \¬ Ðat€trial.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Therefore,€we€do€not€find€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€€with€respect€to€this€issue.Ð ° Ðâ âÌÌÓ  Óò òC.€€Interlocutory€Appealó óÐ tÄ ÐÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€contends€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€did€not€file€anÐ `° Ðinterlocutory€appeal,€under€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9,€when€the€trial€court€denied€his€motion€for€severance.€Ð L œ ÐDefense€counsel€made€and€argued€the€motion€for€severance,€which€was€denied€by€the€trial€court.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐDefense€counsel€also€renewed€the€motion€to€sever€at€trial.€€The€issue€was€properly€preserved€andÐ $ t Ðraised€upon€direct€appeal.€€Whether€the€issue€of€severance€was€presented€to€this€court€by€means€ofÐ  ` Ða€Rule€9€or€Rule€3€appeal€is€of€no€consequence.€€The€fact€remains€that€this€issue€was€presented€toÐ ü L  Ðthis€court€by€counsel€and€was€found€to€be€without€merit.€€Accordingly,€deficient€representation€hasÐ è 8  Ðnot€been€shown.Ð Ô$  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓD.€€Coerced€Into€Not€TestifyingÐ ¬ü  Ðó óÓ  Óà  àFinally,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€defense€counsel€was€ineffective€because€he€ð ðcoerced€himÐ ˜è  Ðinto€not€testifying.ðð€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€defense€counsel€explained€that€he€advised€theÐ „Ô  ÐAppellant€against€testifying,€but€ultimately€left€the€decision€up€to€him.€€Defense€counsel€furtherÐ pÀ Ðexplained€to€the€Appellant€that€if€he€testified€his€prior€criminal€history€could€be€introduced€againstÐ \¬ Ðhim€and€that€his€explanation€for€having€scales€in€the€backseat€of€his€car€would€most€likely€not€appearÐ H˜ Ðcredible€to€a€jury.€€Moreover,€when€asked,€the€Appellant€told€the€trial€judge€it€was€his€decision€notÐ 4„ Ðto€testify.€The€post„conviction€court€properly€found€this€issue€to€be€without€merit.€€Defense€counselððsÐ  p Ðadvice€was€based€purely€on€trial€strategy.€€Ultimately,€the€decision€was€made€by€the€Appellant€as€toÐ  \ Ðwhether€he€would€or€would€not€testify.€€This€court€is€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€findings€unless€theÐ øH Ðevidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€at€755.€€We€conclude€thatÐ ä4 Ðthere€is€no€evidence€contained€within€the€record€that€preponderates€against€those€findings.€Ð Ð  ÐTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð ¼  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓII.€€Motion€for€SeveranceÐ ”ä ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€granting€his€motion€for€severance€ofÐ l¼ Ðthe€defendants.€€However,€this€court€has€already€ruled€on€direct€appeal€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ X ¨ Ðabuse€its€discretion€in€denying€the€motion€to€sever.€€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Johnny€Benard€Jones€and€CliffordÐ D!” ÐLavern€Mitchellóó,€No.€02C01„901ð!ðCC„00026.€€Since€the€trial€courtððs€decision€has€already€beenÐ 0"€  Ðlitigated,€it€is€may€not€be€raised€again€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„30„Ð #l! Ð206(f).€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.Ð $X" ÐÌÌÌÌÐ ¤(ô#' Ðò òÓ  ÓIII.€€SentencingÐ ° ÐÌó óÓ  Óà  àThe€Appellant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€sentencing€him€to€twenty€years€as€a€multipleÐ ˆØ ÐRange€II€offender€to€serve€35%€before€he€can€be€eligible€for€release€classification.€€However,€thereÐ tÄ Ðis€no€appellate€review€of€a€sentence€in€a€post„conviction€hearing.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„35„401(a).€Ð `° ÐFurthermore,€this€issue€was€already€addressed€on€direct€appeal€and€therefore€cannot€be€relitigatedÐ L œ Ðin€a€post„conviction€hearing.€€òòTenn.€Code€Ann.óó€ðð€40„30„206(f);€òòSee€óóòòState€v.€Johnny€Benard€JonesÐ 8 ˆ Ðand€Clifford€Lavern€Mitchellóó,€No.€02C01„901ð!ðCC„00026.€€Therefore,€this€issue€is€also€withoutÐ $ t Ðmerit.Ð  ` ÐÌÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONÐ Ô$  ÐÌÓ  Óà  àó óBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€post„conviction€courtððs€denial€of€post„convictionÐ ¬ü  Ðrelief€relative€to€the€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€at€trial,€however€the€record€supports€groundsÐ ˜è  Ðfor€relief€in€order€to€allow€the€Appellant€to€seek€review€of€this€courtððs€judgment€by€the€TennesseeÐ „Ô  ÐSupreme€Court€in€a€delayed€appeal.€€Therefore,€the€Appellant€has€sixty€(60)€days€from€the€date€ofÐ pÀ Ðrelease€of€this€opinion€to€seek€Rule€11€review.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€òòSee€óóTenn.€S.Ct.€R.€28€ðð€9(C)Ð \¬ Ðand€(D).Ô#†XÆ XX X2Û9B#ÔÐ H˜ ÐÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ä4 Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE