ÿWPCo …# VU>a %Ÿ 0í¥UB’ 4Ô è n­÷ U:¤ Þ w@æ 01& 0DW 0J› 0Tå 0^9 0h— 0rÿ 0|q 0†í 0s 1u 0dx BÜU6ùU./U*]B)‡DC° AMó D3@`sfÓ 0@9v~yvÓ÷ AOÊÆ 0Dß D/# BR˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLüÏ<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 12pt10cpi³†;$3|x€«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular noDpqrstDuDvDwÓ€(á(3¬T$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ëÅXXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ""""'ÿÿdxd VÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌJune€30,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ellan Geneva ÒÒ  ellan Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÑ#€%%Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&Ô›Ñ7€ Œù XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` ç `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€MARCH€1998€SESSIONÌÌÓÓGUADALUPE€MENDEZ,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant,à àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9703„CC„00076Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Montgomery€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à à€Honorable€James€E.€Walton,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à à€€€à à)à à€(Post„Conviction)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellee.à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:ÌÌTim€Wallace€€€€€à àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€Walkupà àà àÌ116€S.€Second€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€of€TennesseeÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àà àandà àà àà àà àÌ(AT€TRIAL)à àà àà àà àà àLisa€A.€NaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€General€of€Tennessee€Ïà àà àà àà àà à425€Fifth€Avenue€North€€€€€à àà àÌGregory€D.€Smithà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌOne€Public€Square,€Suite€321ÌClarksville,€TN€37040à àà àà àJohn€Wesley€Carney,€Jr.Ì(ON€APPEAL)à àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à€à àandÌà àà àà àà àà àArthur€BieberÌà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà à204€Franklin€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àSuite€200Ìà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TN€37040„3420Ìà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMED;€DELAYED€APPEAL€GRANTED€WITH€JUDGMENT€IN€CASE€NO.€01C01„9206„CC„00186€VACATED€AND€REINSTATEDÌÌJoseph€M.€TiptonÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÌà àThe€petitioner,€Guadalupe€Mendez,€appeals€as€of€right€from€theÏMontgomery€County€Circuit€Courtððs€denial€of€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€HeÏcontends€that€he€is€entitled€to€post„conviction€relief€because€he€received€the€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel€by€trial€and€direct€appeal€counsel€because€counsel€(1)€failed€toÏrequest€a€mistrial€after€learning€at€trial€of€an€inculpatory€statement€made€by€theÏpetitioner€and€(2)€failed€to€file€œa€timely›€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court.€€We€conclude€that€the€petitioner€received€the€effectiveÍassistance€of€counsel€with€respect€to€his€claim€that€counsel€should€have€requested€aÏmistrial,€but€we€hold€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€a€delayed€appeal.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€and€sentenced€to€lifeÏimprisonment.€€This€court€affirmed€the€conviction.€€òòState€v.€Guadalupe€S.€Mendezóó,€No.Ï01C01„9206„CC„00186,€Montgomery€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€15,€1993),€òòapplicóó.Ïòòdismissedóó€(Tenn.€Aug.€9,€1993).€€On€August€16,€1994,€the€petitioner€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóóÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief,€raising€several€claims,€including€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel.€€Attached€as€an€exhibit€to€the€petition€was€a€letter€from€theÏpetitionerððs€counsel€explaining€that€he€had€erroneously€calculated€the€time€for€filing€anÏapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€In€the€letter,Ïcounsel€explained€that€as€a€result,€he€filed€an€application€for€permission€to€appealÏunder€Rule€11,€T.R.A.P.,€one€day€late,€and€the€application€was€denied€due€to€itsÏuntimeliness.€€The€petitionerððs€counsel€recommended€that€the€petitioner€file€a€petitionÏfor€post„conviction€relief€alleging€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€because€ofÏcounselððs€error€in€seeking€review€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€ÌÌà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€counsel€testified€that€he€represented€theÏpetitioner€at€trial€and€on€direct€appeal.€€He€stated€that€during€the€stateððs€case„in„chief€atÏtrial,€he€received€a€copy€of€a€six„page,€inculpatory€statement€given€by€the€petitioner€toÏa€detective€while€the€petitioner€was€in€the€hospital.€€He€testified€that€he€believed€thatÍthe€state€inadvertently€failed€to€provide€the€statement€to€him,€violating€his€request€forÏdiscovery.€€Counsel€said€that€the€trial€court€allowed€him€to€review€the€petitionerððsÏstatement€and€the€medical€records€for€approximately€one€and€one„half€hours€before€aÏsuppression€hearing€was€conducted.€€He€stated€that€the€medical€records€showed€thatÏbefore€giving€the€statement€to€police,€the€petitioner€had€been€treated€with€sixÏmilligrams€of€morphine€for€pain€as€a€result€of€a€self„inflicted€wound.€€Counsel€testifiedÏthat€the€detectiveððs€testimony€was€that€the€doctor€had€told€him€that€it€would€be€suitableÏto€interview€the€petitioner.€€He€stated€that€the€trial€court€denied€the€petitionerððs€motionÏto€suppress.€€€€ÌÌà àCounsel€testified€that€he€knew€that€he€could€have€either€requested€aÏmistrial€or€sought€to€suppress€the€statement€and€proceed€with€trial.€€Counsel€statedÏthat€he€chose€not€to€ask€for€a€mistrial€but€instead€sought€to€suppress€the€statementÏbecause€(1)€the€petitioner€was€anxious€to€complete€the€trial,€(2)€counsel€believed€thatÏthe€trial€was€going€well,€(3)€counsel€believed€there€were€adequate€grounds€toÏsuppress€the€statement,€(4)€many€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€either€lived€out€of€state€orÏwere€not€prepared€to€testify,€and€(5)€counsel€was€not€certain€that€a€mistrial€would€beÏgranted.€€He€acknowledged€that€most€attorneys€would€have€requested€a€mistrial€underÏthe€circumstances.ÌÌà àCounsel€testified€that€he€appealed€several€issues€on€appeal€to€theÏTennessee€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€including€the€denial€of€the€petitionerððs€motion€toÏsuppress,€and€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€was€affirmed.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Guadalupe€S.ÏMendezóó,€No.€01C01„9206„CC„00186,€Montgomery€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€15,Ï1993),€òòapplicóó.€òòdismissedóó€(Tenn.€Aug.€9,€1993).€€He€stated€that€he€filed€an€applicationÏfor€permission€to€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€but€that€it€was€deniedÏbecause€it€was€not€timely€filed.€€He€explained€that€he€filed€the€application€one€day€lateÏbecause€he€miscalculated€the€time€for€filing€the€application.€€Counsel€testified€that€heÏsent€a€letter€to€the€petitioner€detailing€the€error€and€its€effect.€€He€identified€the€letter,Ïand€it€was€introduced€as€an€exhibit.ÌÌà àOn€cross„examination,€counsel€testified€that€the€petitioner€was€initiallyÏrepresented€by€retained€counsel€and€that€retained€counsel€was€aware€of€theÏpetitionerððs€statement.€€He€stated€that€retained€counsel€may€have€had€a€copy€of€theÏstatement€but€that€retained€counsel€never€gave€him€a€copy,€although€he€received€theÏmedical€records.€€He€said€that€the€petitioner€also€never€mentioned€the€statementÏduring€the€five€or€six€times€that€he€met€with€the€petitioner.€€Counsel€testified€that€at€trial,Ïthe€state€relied€heavily€on€evidence€other€than€the€petitionerððs€statement€to€establishÏpremeditation€and€deliberation.ÌÌà àOn€redirect€examination,€counsel€testified€that€he€and€the€petitionerÏjointly€decided€to€proceed€to€trial.€€He€believed€that€it€was€emotionally€draining€on€aÏclient€to€continue€a€case€at€the€last€minute€when€the€client€was€prepared€to€go€to€trial.€ÏHe€stated€that€he€would€request€a€mistrial€over€a€clientððs€objection€if€he€believed€thatÏthe€client€would€be€prejudiced.€€Counsel€testified€that€he€believed€that€the€momentumÏof€the€trial€was€in€the€petitionerððs€favor.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€trial€court€denied€post„conviction€relief.€ÏIt€concluded€that€the€petitionerððs€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€as€to€theÏfailure€to€request€a€mistrial€was€a€classic€example€of€trial€strategy.€€It€noted€that€theÏpetitioner€was€not€entitled€to€a€mistrial.€€The€court€found€that€counsel€was€givenÏadequate€time€to€review€the€statement€and€medical€records€and€that€counsel€properlyÏconsidered€the€available€options€and€decided€that€it€was€in€the€petitionerððs€bestÏinterest€to€proceed€with€the€trial.€€It€also€concluded€that€the€petitioner€had€failed€toÏestablish€that€he€had€been€prejudiced€by€trial€counselððs€failure€to€request€a€mistrial.€€AsÏfor€the€petitionerððs€claim€relating€to€counselððs€untimely€filing€of€the€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal,€the€trial€court€found€that€counsel€filed€the€application€forÏpermission€to€appeal€one€day€late,€denying€the€petitioner€the€right€to€appeal€hisÏconviction€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€However,€it€stated€that€it€did€not€believeÏthat€it€had€jurisdiction€under€the€new€Post„Conviction€Act,€òòseeóó€T.C.A.€ðððð€40„30„201„„310,€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal€under€the€circumstances.€€It€held€that€if€it€hadÍjurisdiction€to€set€aside€the€prior€conviction€and€to€order€a€delayed€appeal,€it€did€so€byÏthe€entry€of€the€order.€€It€determined€that€the€petition€should€be€dismissed€because€itÏbelieved€that€it€did€not€have€the€authority€to€vacate€the€Tennessee€Court€of€CriminalÏAppealððs€judgment.€€The€court€detailed€its€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€in€itsÏwritten€order€denying€post„conviction€relief.€€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òI.€€INEFFECTIVE€ASSISTANCE€OF€COUNSELó óÌà àThe€petitioner€contends€that€he€received€the€ineffective€assistance€of€trialÏcounsel€because€his€counsel€failed€to€request€a€mistrial€when€he€received€anÏinculpatory€statement€of€the€petitioner€during€the€stateððs€case„in„chief.€€The€stateÏresponds€that€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€trial€counsel€made€anÏinformed€tactical€decision€based€on€his€observations€and€experiences€to€move€for€theÏsuppression€of€the€statement€instead€of€requesting€a€mistrial.€€We€agree.€€€ÌÌà àUnder€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,€104ÏS.€Ct.€2052,€2064€(1984);€òòseeóó€òòLockhart€v.€Fretwellóó,€506€U.S.€364,€113€S.€Ct.€838,€842„44€(1993).€€Our€supreme€court€has€also€applied€this€standard€to€the€right€to€counselÍunder€Article€I,€Section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€òòState€v.€Melsonóó,€772€S.W.2dÏ417,€419€n.2€(Tenn.€1989),€and€to€the€right€to€appellate€counsel€under€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€596€(Tenn.€1995);€òòseeóó€òòEvitts€v.ÏLuceyóó,€469€U.S.€387,€105€S.€Ct.€830€(1985).ÌÌà àIn€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975),€our€supreme€courtÏdecided€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.Ï1974),€and€òòUnited€States€v.€DeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€1197,€1202„04€(D.C.€Cir.€1973).€€Also,Ïin€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."€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€689,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2065;€Ïòòseeóó€òòHellard€v.€Stateóó,€629€S.W.2d€4,€9€(Tenn.€1982)€(counsel's€conduct€will€not€beÏmeasured€by€"20„20€hindsight").€€Thus,€the€fact€that€a€particular€strategy€or€tactic€failedÏor€even€hurt€the€defense€does€not,€alone,€support€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance.€ÏDeference€is€made€to€trial€strategy€or€tactical€choices€if€they€are€informed€ones€basedÏupon€adequate€preparation.€€òòSeeóó€òòHellardóó,€629€S.W.2d€at€9;€€òòDeCosteróó,€487€F.2d€atÏ1201.€€We€€note,€as€well,€that€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€can€beÍdefeated€by€the€failure€to€make€the€required€showing€of€either€deficient€performance€orÏsufficient€prejudice.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€697,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2069.€€ÌÌà àWe€believe€that€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€the€petitionerÏreceived€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€petitionerÏknew€that€he€could€have€requested€a€mistrial€instead€of€seeking€to€suppress€theÏstatement€and€continuing€with€the€trial.€€However,€as€counsel€recognized,€the€decisionÑ€,ÑÇof€whether€to€grant€a€mistrial€is€within€the€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÏv.€McKinneyóó,€929€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Furthermore,€counselÏreviewed€the€petitionerððs€statement€as€well€as€the€medical€records€and€concluded€thatÏa€motion€to€suppress€was€the€best€plan€of€attack€given€the€fact€that€the€petitioner€wasÏanxious€for€the€trial€to€continue€and€many€of€the€stateððs€witnesses€lived€out€of€state€orÏwere€not€prepared.€€Moreover,€the€petitioner€agreed€with€his€counsel€that€the€trialÏshould€proceed.€€Under€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€correctlyÏdetermined€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel€made€an€informed€tactical€decision€to€move€toÏsuppress€the€petitionerððs€statement€rather€than€request€a€mistrial.€€We€agree€that€theÏpetitioner€received€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel.€€Moreover,€as€the€trial€courtÏnoted,€the€petitioner€failed€to€establish€prejudice.€€€ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€DELAYED€APPEALÌó óà àFinally,€we€address€the€petitionerððs€claim€that€he€is€entitled€to€a€delayedÏappeal.€€œFirst,›€we€note€that€the€trial€court€incorrectly€considered€the€1995€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€in€determining€whether€it€had€the€authority€to€grant€aÏdelayed€appeal.€€The€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€was€filed€on€August€16,€1994,Ïand€is€governed€by€the€œformer›€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„201€(Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€of€1995€governs€all€petitions€filed€on€or€after€MayÏ10,€1995).€€In€any€event,€under€the€former€œact,›€the€trial€court€lacked€the€authority€in€aÏpost„conviction€proceeding€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal€from€the€Tennessee€Court€ofÍCriminal€Appeals€to€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€40„30„120€(1990);ÏòòState€v.€Hopsonóó,€589€S.W.2d€952,€953€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€properly€concluded€that€the€only€remedy€for€the€petitionerÏwas€for€this€court€to€vacate€its€order€affirming€the€petitionerððs€conviction€and€to€reinstateÏit€so€as€to€allow€the€petitioner€the€opportunity€to€seek€review€by€the€TennesseeÏSupreme€Court.€€òòSeeóó€òòHopsonóó,€589€S.W.2d€at€954.€€In€this€respect,€œthe›€trial€court€foundÏas€fact€that€counselððs€filing€of€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€one€day€lateÏdeprived€the€petitioner€of€his€right€to€pursue€an€appeal€to€the€Tennessee€SupremeÏœCourt.€€We€believe€that€the€record€supports€this€finding.›ÌÌà àUnilateral€termination€of€an€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€without€notice€toÏthe€client€has€been€deemed€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€òòSeeóó€òòMoultrie€v.€Stateóó,Ï542€S.W.2d€835,€838€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€€Also,€Tennessee€cases€have€allowedÏfor€delayed€appeals€without€considering€whether€the€issues€to€be€raised€have€anyÏmerit.€€òòSeeóó€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2d€676,€677„78€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984);€òòStateÏv.€Brownóó,€653€S.W.2d€765,€766„67€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);€òòHopsonóó,€589€S.W.2d€atÏ954;€òòCampbell€v.€Stateóó,€576€S.W.2d€591,€592„93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978).€€ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€petitionerððs€counsel€admitted€that€he€did€not€seekÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€review€in€a€timely€manner.€€Counsel€explained€that€heÍmiscalculated€the€time€for€filing€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal,€resulting€in€theÏapplication€being€filed€one€day€late€and€being€ultimately€dismissed€due€to€itsÏuntimeliness.€€A€letter€from€counsel€details€counselððs€error€and€the€effect€of€the€error.€ÏOn€appeal,€the€state€concedes€that€the€petitioner€is€entitled€to€a€delayed€appeal.€ÏUnder€these€circumstances,€we€conclude€that€the€petitioner€was€deprived€of€seekingÏsecond„tier€review€of€his€conviction€through€no€fault€of€his€own.ÌÌà àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€denial€of€post„convictionÏrelief€on€the€grounds€that€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€request€a€mistrial.€€Also,Ïwe€vacate€our€judgment€in€òòState€v.€Guadalupe€S.€Mendezóó,€No.€01C01„9206„CC„00186,€Montgomery€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Apr.€15,€1993),€òòapplicóó.€òòdismissedóó€(Tenn.ÏAug.€8,€1993),€and€reinstate€it€as€of€the€date€of€the€filing€of€this€opinion.€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________òòà àà àà àà àà àà àóóJoseph€M.€Tipton,€Judge€ÌœÌCONCUR:›ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDavid€H.€Welles,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóJoe€G.€Riley,€Judge€€€ÌÌ