ÿWPC# …UBV %˜U .žÌnXÜ 044 4h 1m| 0cé w@L Œ 0x” 0D 0JP 0Tš 0^î 0hL 0r´ 0|& 0†¢ 0( 1u¸ 0d- B‘U6®B)äDC  AMP D3Ðbé 0@K«‹v~6vÓ´ 0w‡ 0Šþ 0 ˆ 0´( 0ÇÜ 0Û£ 0ï~ AOm!Ƽ! 0D‚" D/Æ" Bõ"<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%ä2¼A`ArialTT3|X «<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@%ä2¼A`ArialTTt10cpiXXXä2¼P±ŠQXP( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓÚƒç" tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(;s˜$´´Ô2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à ÷[øEùúDûüDýþDÿ\eÓ€(((3Þ $¤¤Ý ƒ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$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% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ 'ÿÿdxd Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òOctober€3,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Thomas€A.€Milesóó,€No.€03C01„9207„CR„00243,€Jefferson€County,€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€filed€May€18,€1993,€at€Knoxville).Ô€&ÔÌ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò ¡Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ÔÔ€ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó"Note€gestureðð€was€the€term€used€at€trial€by€Mr.€Winstead€to€describe€the€alleged€gesture€madeÏby€the€juror.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€no€one€could€offer€an€explanation€as€to€the€meaning€of€thisÏterm.Ô€&ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò(OÞ{$µµà0  àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(b²D$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xÓñ$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒÆ‚$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿù…$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2,Ô(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³¶4$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Ǫ»$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2,ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ X ÑÑ7€Ò"XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ ` ÑÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÓ  ÓԀԜـ€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà àà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌÓ  Óà@ àJUNE€1997€SESSIONÌÌÌÌó óÌò òTHOMAS€A.€MILES,à àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óà àò òC.C.A.€NO.€ó ó€ò ò03C01„9701„CC„00029ó óÌà àà àAppellant,à àò ò€€€€€à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJEFFERSON€COUNTYó óÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€BEN€HOOPER,€II,ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óÌà àà àAppellee.à àà àà àò ò)ó óà à(Post„conviction)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANT:óóà àà àà à€€€€€òòà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:óóÌÌÌò òO.€DUANE€SLONEó óà àò òà àà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPó óÌò ò€€€€€€€€ó ó„€and€„à àò òà àó óà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌò òREBECCA€D.€SLONEó óÌP.O.€Box€1088ò òà àà àà àà àà àSANDY€R.€COPOUSó óà àà à€€€€€ÏDandridge,€TN€€37725à àà àà àà àAsst.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€Pkwy.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òAL€C.€SCHMUTZER,€JR.ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òJAMES€GASSó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSevier€County€CourthouseÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSuite€301à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSevierville,€TN€€37862Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:____________________ÌÌÌÌò òTRIAL€COURT€REVERSED,€REMANDED€ÌFOR€NEW€SENTENCING€HEARING;€PRIOR€ÌOPINION€VACATED€AND€REINSTATEDó óÌÌÌò òJOHN€H.€PEAY,ó óÌJudgeÑ Ü ÑÓ  Óà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€petitioner€was€convicted€of€aggravated€robbery€on€October€29,Ï1991.€€Following€a€sentencing€hearing,€he€was€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multipleÏoffender€to€twenty€years€in€the€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.€€His€convictionÏwas€affirmed€by€this€Court€on€May€18,€1993.× ƒ, ××  ×€€The€petitioner€then€filed€a€òòproóó€òòseóóÏpetition€for€post„conviction€relief€on€November€8,€1993.€€Counsel€was€appointed€andÏan€amended€petition€was€subsequently€filed.€€After€a€hearing€on€September€13,Ï1996,€the€post„conviction€court€denied€any€relief€to€the€petitioner.€€It€is€from€thisÏdenial€that€he€now€appeals.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€alleges€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€be€tried€by€a€fairÏand€impartial€jury€and€that€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffective€in€their€representation.€ÏAfter€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€that€the€petitionerððs€trial€counsel€were€ineffectiveÏin€that€they€failed€to€present€any€mitigating€factors€at€the€petitionerððs€sentencingÏhearing€and€that€they€failed€to€file€a€timely€application€for€permission€to€appeal€to€theÏSupreme€Court.€€Therefore,€we€remand€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€resentencing,Ïand,€for€purposes€of€the€delayed€appeal,€we€vacate€our€judgment€in€case€numberÏ03C01„9207„CR„00243,€dated€May€18,€1993,€and€reinstate€it€as€of€the€date€ofÏrelease€of€this€opinion.ÌÌà àà àThe€facts€underlying€the€petitionerððs€conviction€are€as€follows.€€On€theÏnight€of€February€18,€1991,€two€men€forced€their€way€into€the€home€of€Eva€Miles.€ÏWhile€one€man€tied€Ms.€Milesðð€hands€and€feet€and€beat€her€repeatedly,€the€otherÏbegan€to€go€through€the€house€taking€items.€€Ms.€Miles€testified€at€trial€that€althoughÏthe€men€were€wearing€masks,€she€had€no€doubt€that€the€one€searching€the€houseÏwas€her€son,€the€petitioner.€€A€jury€found€the€petitioner€guilty€of€aggravated€robberyÏbut€acquitted€his€codefendant€Donald€Cox.€€The€petitioner€was€represented€byÏHeiskell€Winstead€and€Terry€Stewart,€an€attorney€who€shared€office€space€with€Mr.ÏWinstead.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€first€contends€that€hisÏconstitutional€rights€were€violated€because€he€was€not€tried€by€a€fair€and€impartialÏjury.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€because€a€juror€made€some€sort€of€gesture€towardÏKippy€Miles,€the€petitionerððs€brother€and€a€witness€for€the€State,€the€petitioner€wasÏnot€tried€by€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.€€The€trial€transcript€reveals€that€immediately€priorÏto€opening€statements,€Mr.€Winstead€told€the€court€that€he€had€just€been€informedÏthat€one€of€the€jurors€had€made€a€ð ðnote€gestureðð€toward€Kippy€Miles× ƒ. ××  ×€when€the€jurorÏentered€the€room.€€The€trial€judge€responded€that€Mr.€Winstead€could€explore€theÏsubject€as€it€unfolded.€€However,€the€juror€and€her€alleged€gesture€were€neverÏmentioned€again.ÌÌà àà àIn€the€petitionerððs€brief,€he€argues€that€this€gesture€ð ðcertainly€gives€riseÏto€a€suspicion€of€prejudice€or€bias.ðð€€He€further€suggests€that€the€juror€may€have€beenÏuntruthful€with€the€court€when€she€stated€that€she€did€not€know€any€of€the€partiesÏinvolved€in€the€case.ÌÌà àà àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€Mr.€Winstead€testified€that€the€subject€ofÏthe€gesture€was€not€explored€beyond€his€calling€it€to€the€courtððs€attention.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€did€not€ask€to€reopen€the€examination€of€the€juror€or€to€challenge€her.€ÏHe€further€testified€that€he€did€not€see€the€alleged€gesture€and€that€he€had€no€otherÏinformation€regarding€it.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitionerððs€post„conviction€attorney€informed€the€court€that€she€hadÏsearched€diligently€for€the€juror€but€had€been€unable€to€locate€her.€€She€also€told€theÏcourt€that€she€had€spoken€with€Kippy€Miles€about€the€incident€and€he€had€noÏmemory€of€such€a€gesture.€€In€fact,€the€attorney€stated,€ð ðThereððs€no€evidence€as€toÏwhether€the€juror€was€successful€or€not€in€getting€[Kippy€Milesðð]€attention,€or€talking€toÏhim,€or€whatever,€and€he€just€simply€doesnððt€remember€one€way€or€another€either.ðð€ÌÌà àà àð ðIn€post„conviction€relief€proceedings€the€peti‚tioner€has€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€allegations€in€his€[or€her]€petition€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.ðð€ÏòòMcBee€v.€Stateóó,€655€S.W.2d€191,€195€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€Fur‚thermore,€theÏfactual€findings€of€the€trial€court€in€hearings€ð ðare€conclusive€on€appeal€unless€theÏevidence€preponderates€against€the€judgment.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bufordóó,€666€S.W.2d€473,Ï475€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).€€In€this€case,€the€post„conviction€court€judge€found€thatÏthe€petitioner€failed€to€prove€that€he€was€denied€the€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.€ÍWe€find€no€reason€to€disturb€the€courtððs€conclusion.€€The€petitioner€failed€to€carry€hisÏburden€in€that€he€failed€to€show€any€impropriety€on€the€part€of€the€jury.€€This€issue€isÏwithout€merit.ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€his€defense€counsel€at€trial€wereÏineffective.€€Specifically,€he€claims€that€defense€counsel€were€ineffective€in€failing€toÏfollow€through€with€the€complaint€against€one€of€the€jurors,€failing€to€raise€anyÏmitigating€factors€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€failing€to€properly€appeal€the€sentencingÏissue€to€this€Court,€and€failing€to€timely€file€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€toÏthe€Supreme€Court.ÌÌà àà àIn€reviewing€the€petitionerððs€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€ineffectiveÏassistance€of€counsel,€this€Court€must€deter‚mine€whether€the€advice€given€orÏservices€rendered€by€the€attorney€are€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€ofÏattorneys€in€criminal€cases.€€òòBaxter€v.€Roseóó,€523€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€1975).€€ToÏprevail€on€a€claim€of€inef‚fective€counsel,€a€petitioner€ð ðmust€show€that€counselððsÏrepresenta‚tion€fell€below€an€objective€standard€of€reason‚ablenessðð€and€that€thisÏperformance€prejudiced€the€defense.€€There€must€be€a€reasonable€probability€thatÏbut€for€coun‚selððs€error€the€result€of€the€proceeding€would€have€been€different.€ÏòòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€687„88,€692,€694€(1984);€òòBest€v.€Stateóó,€708ÍS.W.2d€421,€422€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1985).ÌÌà àà àFirst€the€petitioner€claims€that€Mr.€Winstead€was€ineffective€for€hisÏfailure€to€further€pursue€the€alleged€gesture€made€by€a€juror€toward€Kippy€Miles.€€AsÏdiscussed€above,€this€issue€is€without€merit.€€The€petitioner€fails€to€prove€that€Mr.ÏWinsteadððs€representation,€as€it€related€to€this€matter,€was€below€the€objectiveÏstandard€of€reasonableness€and€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€such€representation.€€TheÏpetitioner€presented€no€evidence€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€to€support€this€claimÏof€ineffective€assistance.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€next€claims€that€his€defense€counsel€were€ineffective€forÏfailing€to€present€any€mitigating€factors€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€transcript€ofÏthe€sentencing€hearing€reflects€that€the€petitioner€was€mainly€represented€by€Mr.ÏStewart.€€Mr.€Stewart€told€the€trial€judge€that€he€had€no€evidence€to€offer€at€theÏsentencing€hearing,€but€that€the€petitioner€did€want€to€make€a€statement.€€At€that€time,Ïthe€State€requested€that€the€victim,€the€petitionerððs€mother,€be€allowed€to€make€aÏstatement€as€well.€€Mr.€Stewart€made€no€objection€and€Ms.€Miles€took€the€stand.€€SheÏtold€the€court€that€her€son€was€a€pathological€liar€and€had€been€that€way€for€someÏtime.€€She€said€he€lived€in€a€dream€world€and€could€not€tell€truth€from€fantasy.€€SheÏthen€told€the€court€that€during€the€time€she€was€robbed,€her€son€never€struck€her.€ÍShe€said€the€codefendant€had€been€the€one€who€beat€her.€€She€also€asked€theÏjudge€to€get€some€help€for€her€son.€€Ms.€Miles€was€not€questioned€by€either€the€StateÏor€Mr.€Stewart;€she€simply€stated€the€above€to€the€court.€€The€petitioner€then€took€theÏstand€and€reiterated€to€the€court€that€he€was€innocent€of€the€crime€for€which€he€hadÏbeen€convicted.€€The€defendant€was€then€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€multiple€offenderÏto€twenty€years,€the€maximum€sentence.ÌÌà àà àIn€this€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€petitioner€claims€that€Mr.€StewartÏwas€ineffective€for€not€presenting€any€mitigating€evidence€to€the€trial€court.€€He€claimsÏthat€at€least€five€mitigating€factors€could€have€applied€and€should€have€beenÏpresented€to€the€trial€court€for€consideration.€€The€post„conviction€court€found€thatÏthere€were€no€mitigating€factors€to€present€because€the€petitioner€had€maintained€hisÏinnocence,€thus€preventing€the€use€of€mitigating€factors.ÌÌà àà àWe€cannot€agree€with€such€reasoning.€€The€petitioner,€althoughÏmaintaining€his€innocence,€could€have€presented€mitigating€evidence€throughÏtestimony€of€persons€other€than€himself.€€The€presentation€of€mitigating€factors€doesÏnot€equate€with€an€admission€of€guilt.€€After€a€review€of€the€testimony€at€trial€and€ofÏthe€testimony€from€the€post„conviction€hearing,€we€conclude€that€at€least€one€of€theÏpetitionerððs€suggested€mitigating€factors€may€apply.€€Thus,€that€Mr.€Stewart€failed€toÍpresent€evidence€of€any€mitigating€factors€was€prejudicial€to€the€petitioner.€€We€noteÏthat€although€there€is€no€requirement€that€defense€counsel€present€mitigatingÏevidence,€it€is€clear€that€Mr.€Stewart€should€have€presented€evidence€for€the€courtððsÏconsideration.€€The€sentencing€judge€obviously€did€not€consider€any€mitigatingÏfactors€as€he€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€the€maximum€sentence.€€Thus,€we€concludeÏthat€the€petitioner€was€prejudiced€by€Mr.€Stewartððs€failure€to€offer€mitigating€evidence,Ïand€remand€this€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€a€second€sentencing€hearing.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€also€claims€that€Mr.€Stewart€was€ineffective€in€hisÏrepresentation€of€the€petitioner€on€appeal.€€Apparently,€Mr.€Stewart€failed€to€properlyÏbrief€the€issue€of€sentencing€by€failing€to€cite€any€authority€for€his€assertion€that€theÏpetitionerððs€sentence€was€inappropriate.€€As€a€result€of€his€failure€to€cite€anyÏauthority,€a€panel€of€this€Court€refused€to€evaluate€the€issue€and€deemed€it€waived.€ÏSince€we€have€remanded€this€cause€for€a€second€sentencing€hearing,€the€issue€ofÏMr.€Stewartððs€effectiveness€on€appeal€is€moot.€€The€petitioner€has€already€beenÏawarded€a€new€sentencing€hearing€which€will€cure€any€prejudice€he€may€haveÏsuffered€due€to€the€inadequate€appellate€brief.€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€Ìà àà àThe€petitionerððs€final€contention€is€that€his€trial€counsel€were€ineffectiveÏin€that€they€failed€to€file€a€timely€application€to€appeal€to€the€Supreme€Court.€€At€theÍpetitionerððs€post„conviction€hearing,€Mr.€Stewart€testified€that€while€Mr.€Winstead€hadÏperformed€much€of€the€trial€work,€he€[Mr.€Stewart]€had€been€responsible€for€theÏappellate€work.€€He€further€testified€that€shortly€after€this€Court€affirmed€theÏpetitionerððs€conviction€and€sentence,€he€[Mr.€Stewart]€had€contracted€a€debilitatingÏdisease€that€required€him€to€be€hospitalized€for€approximately€two€months.€€Mr.ÏStewart€admitted€that€because€of€his€illness,€he€failed€to€file€a€timely€application€toÏthe€Supreme€Court.€€Upon€his€recovery,€Mr.€Stewart€did€file€an€application€with€theÏCourt,€but€the€Court€refused€to€consider€the€application€due€to€its€untimeliness.ÌÌà àà àWhile€we€do€not€discount€Mr.€Stewartððs€grave€illness,€we€cannot€ignoreÏthe€fact€that€this€petitioner€was€entitled€to€petition€the€Supreme€Court€to€review€hisÏconviction.€€Tennessee€case€law€provides€that€ð ðunilateral€termination€of€a€directÏappeal€following€first„tier€review€entitles€a€prospective€appellant€to€relief€in€the€formÏof€a€delayed€appeal.ðð€€òòPinkston€v.€Stateóó,€668€S.W.2d€676,€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1984).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòMoultrie€v.€Stateóó,€542€S.W.2d€835€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1976).€ÏFurthermore,€Tennessee€case€law€indicates€that€it€is€not€necessary€to€considerÏwhether€any€of€the€issues€to€be€raised€on€appeal€have€any€merit.€€òòSeeóó€òòPinkstonóó,€668ÏS.W.2d€676.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€653€S.W.2d€765€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983);ÏòòState€v.€Hopsonóó,€589€S.W.2d€952€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979).€€€ð ðIn€fact,€in€the€context€ofÏthe€failure€to€preserve€the€right€to€seek€supreme€court€review€of€this€courtððs€opinion,Íwe€believe€that€it€would€be€particularly€inappropriate€for€either€a€trial€court€or€thisÏcourt€to€assess€the€merits€of€or€predict€the€outcome€of€a€Rule€11,€T.R.A.P.,€applicationÏfor€permission€to€appeal.ðð€€òòJonathan€A.€Hyler€v.€Stateóó,€No.€01C01„9511„CR„00362,ÏDavidson€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€Sept.€19,€1996,€at€Nashville),€òòcert.óó€òòdeniedóó,ÏMarch€3,€1997.€€Thus,€we€conclude,€as€conceded€by€the€State,€that€the€petitioner€wasÏdenied€his€right€to€seek€second„tier€review€of€his€conviction,€and€as€a€result,€he€isÏnow€entitled€to€a€delayed€appeal.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€affirm€the€courtððs€denial€of€the€petitionerððsÏpost„conviction€relief€in€terms€of€vacating€his€conviction.€€However,€the€petitionerÏshould€be€allowed€to€seek€review€by€the€Supreme€Court€on€a€delayed€basis.€ÏTherefore,€we€vacate€our€judgment€in€case€number€03C01„9207„CR„00243,€datedÏMay€18,€1993,€and€reinstate€it€as€of€the€date€of€release€of€this€opinion.€€We€alsoÏremand€this€cause€to€the€trial€court€for€a€new€sentencing€hearing€in€order€thatÏmitigating€evidence€may€be€considered.ÌÓÓÌòòà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€à àJOHN€H.€PEAY,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌòòÌÌÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óó€€€ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCURWOOD€WITT,€Judge