ÿWPCì gEnHj¥âÄjïÓd]}Æô¤aèÄhïqÑܬ Ö®6iðŸi YŠ¦îšøÄ·*ÜÁä²H[ÚâXao2Ýe YæÞ,æ÷â·ÿ43r= ‡¥GbþÏé œó)¿úAŒ –Nq½„í Òí=ñ䂈àÊbî'¿/ª²SñáŒÿ[„ŸØâÒò/¿÷ÅÇéVþçg8ÞµW ž]òôŒU ò5êÕßHFhÇ ÁýM¹^ÿ²ÕH°¸½óH5)°Íq÷¬;JÒ¨2\uoðï5ёִ¸À2ê' „Ž{‚!}B=\Ä ¼MI$¸³Ø#§½½¸@½*¡•¥7ŽÔ¼‚èoüøñCÂ!hJ´^<\aàt—U4aâ¶Z†Û¼îÚD÷´`¸;Þ"£ÂaÛ„Øxûs”Y> дu CJ3£‘½Õ6ìbì°ŠÉ[(YK"ÿr¬Å=B“ÃÆ‰Z>ñHá.Zø±å°³ŽY÷IѳöÛ:Õ-@Áž#KÏÛR+Iˆ÷©Úƒ¤tÏD«¾/s²³â1IâȨ¼³šÁ.l{?[~juŠj9ª¢qã—/²ëíšÞÄ&j+$šèb‘ôtO:*IgT8RÏMO>xÓ¯‡(5oGiÉ6jb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ 1u™ Æ ÆÔ ÆšÆ` 72&NX 0cZà½EU@ŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸŸbßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßß 0ëçççç BÒÒ 0¤ï D5“ D-È 0Kõõ AS@Æ“ 0¤Y 0Dý A«A˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6ÒV,,,,ÒV0»¨D1Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularh_B0ê:i¢×+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à  CrimWoodallLannomRodiferPinkstonStovallnobisHopson P.J.Kehoeaffirmance i]f(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman - ù-(|G2¶Ã$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‹é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¨Ìò»»Ô d(|3ÿ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‹é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‹é»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€‹é»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼‹é»»»ÔÑ8€ÓXXdé»»d8Ñà@hhìàÔ‡îu&‹éÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@gg$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼‹é»îîu& #ԈРÓ# ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àNovember€19,€2003€SessionÐ öF ÐÔ‡XÓX»¼‹éÔÌò òÔ#†¼‹é»XXÓ#ÔSTEVE€EDWARD€LEACHòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XÓX»¼‹éÔó óÐ ï? ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Smith€CountyÐ é 9 Ðà@@øøìàNo.€95„74€€€€€€James€O.€Bond,€JudgeÐ Ó # ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‘á  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02194„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€October€1,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ŠÚ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<]` AßÐ ^®  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Steve€Edward€Leach,€entered€pleas€of€guilt€to€first€degree€murder€and€rape€of€a€child.€Ð V¦  ÐThe€trial€court€imposed€consecutive€sentences€of€life€imprisonment€without€the€possibility€of€paroleÐ ? Ðand€25€years,€respectively.€€There€was€no€direct€appeal€of€the€conviction€or€sentence.€€Later,€theÐ (x Ðpetitioner€was€denied€his€application€for€post„conviction€relief.€€This€court€affirmed.€€òòSteven€EdwardÐ a ÐLeach€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M1999„00774„CCA„R3„PC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Feb.€16,€2001).€Ð úJ ÐCounsel€for€the€petitioner€failed€to€make€a€timely€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÐ ã3 Ðsupreme€court€and€our€supreme€court€denied€a€request€to€waive€the€60„day€period€of€limitation€asÐ Ì Ðprescribed€by€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€11.€€By€motion,€the€petitioner€then€appliedÐ µ Ðfor€relief€in€the€post„conviction€court.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€that€the€petitioner€was€notÐ žî Ðat€fault€for€failing€to€timely€file€a€Rule€11€application€but€denied€relief€based€upon€lack€ofÐ ‡× Ðjurisdiction.€€In€this€appeal,€the€petitioner€has€asked€this€court€to€vacate€and€re„enter€its€judgmentÐ pÀ Ðfiled€February€16,€2001,€in€Cause€No.€M1999„00774„CCA„R3„PCÔ#†¼‹é»XXÓ‹#ÔÔ‡XÓX»¼‹éÔ.€€Because€our€supreme€court€hasÐ Y© Ðruled€under€similar€circumstances€that€the€petitioner€was€not€entitled€to€the€effective€assistance€ofÐ B’ Ðcounsel€and€was€not€denied€due€process€of€law,€the€judgment€is€affirmed.Ð +{ ÐÓ¤ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€AffirmedÐ ýM Ðó óÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼‹é»àXÓ/ #ÔÔ‡XÓX.¼‹éÔGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòThomas€T.€Woodallóó€and€òòNormaÐ Ð! ! ÐMcGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ¹" " ÐÌFrank€Lannom€(on€appeal)€and€Ô_ÔZachÔ_Ô€Griffith€(at€trial),€Lebanon,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€SteveÐ ‹$Û$ ÐEdward€Leach.Ð t%Ä % ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€andÐ F'–"' ÐTom€P.€Thompson,€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð /(#( ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼‹é»XXÓñ #ÔÔ‡XÓX»¼‹éÔÐ *Q%* ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼‹é»XXÓ£#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XÓX»¼‹éÔà  àOn€November€19,€1995,€the€petitioner€was€indicted€for€first€degree€murder,€felony€murder,Ð Ô+$', Ðtwo€counts€of€rape€of€a€child,€and€attempted€rape€of€a€child.€€On€September€4,€1996,€the€petitionerÐ ½, (- Ðentered€into€a€plea€agrÔ_ÔeementÔ_Ô€with€the€state€whereby€he€pled€guilty€to€one€count€each€of€first€degreeÐ ¦-ö(.ý ÐÔ_Ômurder€and€rape€of€a€child.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€life€without€the€possibility€ofÐ ° Ðparole€for€the€murder€to€be€served€consecutively€to€a€twenty„five„year€sentence€for€the€rape€of€aÐ ™é Ðchild.€Ð ‚Ò ÐÌòòà  àóóIn€òòSteven€Edward€Leach€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M1999„00774„CCA„R3„PC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ T¤ ÐNashville,€Feb.€16,€2001),€this€court€affirmed€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€However,€counselÐ =  Ðfor€the€petitioner€failed€to€file€a€timely€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court.€Ð & v ÐFurther,€counsel€€failed€to€withdraw€as€provided€by€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Rule€14.€€On€AprilÐ  _ Ð15,€2002,€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€for€relief,€asking€the€post„conviction€court€to€make€a€factualÐ ø H Ðfinding€that€his€appointed€counsel€had€failed€to€either€timely€file€an€application€for€permission€toÐ á 1  Ðappeal€the€decision€of€this€court€to€our€supreme€court€or€properly€obtain€permission€to€withdraw€asÐ Ê   Ðrequired€by€rule.€€The€post„conviction€judge€determined€that€while€it€was€without€jurisdiction€toÐ ³  Ðvacate€or€reinstate€the€opinion€of€the€court€of€criminal€appeals,€the€petitioner's€€counsel€wasÐ œì  Ðresponsible€for€the€procedural€mishap.Ð …Õ  ÐÌà  àThe€petitioner€has€again€appealed,€asking€this€court€to€withdraw€and€re„enter€its€affirmanceÐ W§  Ðof€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€In€response,€the€state€first€insists€that€because€the€judgmentÐ @ Ðentered€by€the€post„conviction€court€was€merely€a€factual€finding,€it€could€not€be€appealed€underÐ )y ÐTennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€3(b),€which€provides€for€an€"appeal€as€of€right€from€an€orderÐ b Ðdenying€or€revoking€probation,€and€from€a€final€judgment€in€a€criminal€contempt,€habeas€corpus,Ð ûK Ðextradition,€or€post„conviction€proceeding."€€In€the€alternative,€the€state€argues€that€the€court€ofÐ ä4 Ðcriminal€appeals€does€not€have€authority€to€vacate€and€re„enter€its€own€opinion.€€It€argues€that€to€doÐ Í Ðso€would€directly€contradict€the€terms€of€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995,€citing€asÐ ¶ Ðauthority€an€order€entered€in€òòState€v.€Stella€Rodiferóó,€No.€E2001„00034„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð Ÿï ÐApp.,€at€Knoxville,€Mar.€14,€2003).€€It€is€the€position€of€the€state€that€òòState€v.€Pinkstonóó,€668€S.W.2dÐ ˆØ Ð676€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€does€not€extend€the€remedy€of€a€delayed€appeal€to€second„tier€reviewÐ qÁ Ðof€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€Its€rationale€is€that€by€granting€a€delayed€appeal€in€a€post„Ð Zª Ðconviction€case,€this€court€would€be€granting€relief€for€ineffective€assistance€of€post„convictionÐ C“ Ðcounsel,€a€non„existent€entitlement€under€either€the€state€or€federal€constitutions.€€The€state€citesÐ ,| ÐòòDavid€Stovall€v.€Stateóó,€No.€M1999„00937„CCA„R3„PC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€Dec.€29,Ð e Ð1999),€for€the€proposition€that€the€petitioner€is€not€entitled€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€inÐ þN Ða€post„conviction€proceeding.€€Ð ç 7 ÐÌà  àIn€òòAnthony€Jerome€Stokes€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E2002„02597„CCA„R3„PC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€atÐ ¹" ! ÐKnoxville,€July€7,€2003),€òòperm.€to€appeal€grantedóó€(Tenn.€Dec.€22,€2003),€a€panel€of€this€courtÐ ¢#ò" Ðrejected€the€same€argument€made€by€the€state€in€this€case.€€As€in€this€instance,€Stokes's€post„Ð ‹$Û# Ðconviction€counsel€had€failed€to€either€timely€file€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÐ t%Ä $ Ðsupreme€court€or€withdraw€as€counsel€as€provided€by€rule.€€After€our€supreme€court€denied€theÐ ]&­!% Ðpetitioner's€motion€to€file€a€delayed€application€for€permission€to€appeal,€the€petitioner€filed€aÐ F'–"& Ð"petition€for€enforcement€of€agreement,"€which€he€amended€to€request€a€writ€of€error€coram€nobisÐ /(#' Ðand€a€reopening€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€The€post„conviction€court€denied€reliefÐ )h$( Ðbased€upon€lack€of€jurisdiction.€€An€appeal€resulted€in€a€remand€for€an€evidentiary€hearing€toÐ *Q%) Ðdetermine€whether€there€had€been€a€violation€of€the€petitioner's€due€process€rights.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthonyÐ ê*:&* ÐJerome€Stokes€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E2000„03232„CCA„R3„PC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Oct.€15,Ð Ó+#'+ Ð2001).€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€conducted€an€evidentiary€hearing€and€concluded€that€the€petitionerÐ ° Ðwas€free€from€any€fault€for€his€counsel's€failure€to€take€appropriate€action€after€the€entry€of€theÐ ™é Ðopinion€by€the€court€of€criminal€appeals.€€Upon€review,€this€court€vacated€and€reinstated€its€initialÐ ‚Ò Ðopinion€affirming€the€denial€of€post„conviction€relief,€finding€that€the€petitioner€had€been€caught€inÐ k» Ða€"procedural€trap"€and€denied€due€process.€€òòSeeóó€òòAnthony€Jerome€Stokes€v.€Stateóó,€No.€E2002„02597„Ð T¤ ÐCCA„R3„PC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€July€7,€2003).€€In€òòAnthony€Jerome€Stokes€v.€Stateóó,Ð =  Ð___€S.W.3d€___,€No.€E2002„02597„SC„R11„PC,€filed€September€23,€2004,€however,€our€supremeÐ & v Ðcourt€ruled€that€Stokes€was€not€entitled€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€post„convictionÐ  _ Ðproceedings€and€held€that€because€Stokes€received€a€full€evidentiary€hearing€and€first€tier€review€onÐ ø H Ðhis€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€there€was€no€due€process€violation.€Ð á 1  ÐÌà  àOur€supreme€court,€which€had€not€previously€addressed€the€issue€presented,€acknowledgedÐ ³  Ðthat€there€is€a€statutory€right€to€counsel€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð40„Ð œì  Ð30„107(b)(1)€(2003),€but€the€right€to€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€applies€only€through€the€firstÐ …Õ  Ðappeal€as€of€right.€€òòSeeóó€òòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€712€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€òòStokesóó,€the€high€courtÐ n¾  Ðheld€that€"[i]f€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€post„conviction€counsel€does€not€establish€anÐ W§  Ðexcuse€for€a€defendant's€failure€to€raise€an€issue,€it€similarly€cannot€provide€an€excuse€for€aÐ @ Ðdefendant's€failure€to€timely€file€a€Rule€11€application."€€òòStokesóó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€Our€high€courtÐ )y Ðobserved€that€in€the€post„conviction€setting,€constitutional€due€process€requires€nothing€more€thanÐ b Ðthe€"opportunity€to€be€heard€at€a€meaningful€time"€and€in€a€meaningful€way.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€6Ð ûK Ð(quoting€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€711).€€The€opinion€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòStokesóó€is€controllingÐ ä4 Ðauthority.Ð Í ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€denying€relief€is€affirmed.Ð Ÿï ÐÌÔ‡XA+ XXXÓÔÌÔ#†XÓX XXA+9-#ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð C“ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE