ÿWPCæy •#Á6 %÷ ^ ý 0ˆ UN‘ wß 4ã z÷ Òq C R mT 0Dk Ư Æu Æ;ÆNÇNÉ 1Ë 1XEå 72ç 1u 72Ž 0cÀB6# 0ÐY D/) 0:X 0ô’ 0ñ† 0îw 0ëe 0èP 0å8 0â 0ßÿ 0ÜÞ 0⺠0ßœ 0Ü{ 0ÙW 0Ö0 0Ó bÙ 0Íá 0Ê®! 0áx" 0ÞY# 0Û7$ 0Ø% 0Õê% 0Ò¿& 0Ï‘' 0Ì`( 0É,) 00õ) 0<%* 0¾a* 0>+ 0v]+ 0`Ó+ 0`3, 0`“, 0`ó, 0`S- 08³- 0Òë- 02½. 0üï. 0:ë/ 0Y%0 0_~0 0 Ý0 0jç1 0„Q3 B*Õ4 D/ÿ4 0<.5 0„j5 0ëî6 0ÎÙ7 06§8 0Ý8 Bå9 0^: 0@`: D5 : D-Õ: 0K; 0wM; ASÄ;Æ< 0¤Ý< 0D= A«Å= 1p> 72ý>U6/?U9>e?U*£?D=Í? 0’ @D=œ@ 0’Ù@ 0JkA 0TµA 0^ B 0hgB ÏB 0réB 0|[C 0†×C 0]D 1uíD 0dbEÆEU*ÎE›øE\“G§ïIš–K™0M ÉONÖQ 1$SB¥SéçVbÐYO2b 1gah 1clälov~•rvÓt˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Eª…+ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularÖJ~' œ -¡ ˜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‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(÷ CEMU]emu}AutoList3(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)0¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à2 Line 1 d d28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý ÓN)2dxd4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡d<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡eô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡d<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡eô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡d<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡eô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€O(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡f%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡eô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dN)1dxd2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡f%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡eô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó(|G2¾ÿ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïýò»»Ô0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡d<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡eô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡d<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡eô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ d: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€VÕ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKK ¶ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)b(1)<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial7Border 1!!!!dd<V ÿÿ:zBottom of Ó!€h!ÓÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÔ€fÔ7Border 2!!!!dd<V ÿÿ:zTop of ForÓ!€j!ÓÓ  ÓÔ€ÔÔ€fÔ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÿÿSearchTerm2@ 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  Ônoqrtuvw ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ < Œ 9p`(Times ‘Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCuriously,€the€court€also€found€that€the€petition€was€not€timely€filed.€€It€appears,€however,€that€theÏpetition€was€premature,€not€untimely.Ì RÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIt€is€unnecessary€for€us€to€determine€whether€counselððs€belief€regarding€the€best„interest€pleaððs€effect€on€theÏcivil€litigation€is€well€founded.€€Accordingly,€nothing€in€this€opinion€should€be€construed€as€addressing€the€actualÏadmissibility€of€the€petitionerððs€best„interest€guilty€plea€in€the€collateral€civil€litigation.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€petitionerððs€competence€to€choose€counsel€would€necessarily€entail€his€ability€to€waive€the€conflict€ofÏinterests€that€the€lower€court€perceived.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFrom€this€point€in€the€post„conviction€litigation€forward,€the€petitionerððs€filings€have€utilized€the€captionÏhe€adopted€in€this€motion.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€motion€does€not€specify€the€date€of€the€order€regarding€the€ð ðnext€friendðð€issue.€€Review€of€aÏmemorandum€filed€by€the€petitioner€with€the€motion€indicates€the€order€of€which€the€petitioner€complains€is€that€ofÏJune€30,€2000,€when€the€court€dismissed€the€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€As€we€have€noted,€theÏdismissal€was€not€appealed€and€apparently€became€a€final€order.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€this€letter€appears€to€have€been€filed€with€the€clerk€of€the€lower€court,€it€has€not€been€includedÏin€the€appellate€record.€€The€information€we€have€about€this€letter€comes€from€the€lower€courtððs€order€denying€theÏrelief€the€letter€requested.Ì DÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔPage€twelve€of€this€motion€is€absent€from€the€appellate€record.Ìnoqrtuvw ÿÿ?AIQYaiqyIndent1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔTheÔ_Ô€only€effort€to€include€Ms.€Morrison€as€ð ðnext€friendðð€appears€to€be€counselððs€unilateral€adoption€of€theÏstyle€ð ðJesse€C.€Minor,€b/n/f€Leann€Morrison€and€by€and€through€counsel,€Hal€Hardin€v.€State€of€Tennesseeðð€after€theÏlower€court€appointed€the€attorney€òòad€litemóó€and€ordered€the€mental€evaluation.€€We€are€aware€of€no€basis€upon€whichÏa€person€may€unilaterally€inject€herself€into€pending€litigation€without€permission€of€the€court,€and€the€petitionerÏhas€made€no€attempt€to€justify€this€anomalous€action.Ì ßÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€this€juncture,€we€are€compelled€to€comment€that€when€the€petitioner€applied€to€this€court€forÏextraordinary€review,€he€obfuscated€the€true€nature€of€the€proceeding€by€employing€in€the€application€a€unilaterallyÏadopted€caption€indicating€Ms.€Morrison€was€proceeding€as€ð ðnext€friendðð€of€her€father,€Mr.€Minor.€€We€have€nowÏreviewed€the€full€appellate€record€transmitted€to€us,€and€it€is€apparent€that€there€is€no€ð ðnext€friendðð€controversy€in€theÏpresent€case.€Ì XÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAn€unauthenticated€copy€of€what€purports€to€be€this€order€was€filed€as€an€exhibit€with€the€petitionerððsÏapplication€for€Rule€10€review.€€While€this€document€was€properly€submitted€in€support€of€the€Rule€10€application,Ïan€authenticated€copy€of€it€was,€for€some€reason,€excluded€from€the€appellate€record€that€was€certified€to€us€by€theÏlower€court€clerk.€€òòSee€óóTenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(a).€€The€parties€were€not€powerless€to€place€this€document€before€us.€ÏThe€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€allow€a€party€to€add€any€item€to€the€record€which€is€ð ðnecessary€to€convey€a€fair,Ïaccurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€in€the€trial€court€with€respect€to€those€issues€that€are€the€bases€ofÏappeal.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(g).€€Neither€party€chose€to€seek€supplementation€of€the€record.€€Although€theÏpetitioner€included€a€document€purporting€to€be€such€an€order€in€the€appendix€to€his€brief,€that€document€is€notÏevidence€that€we€may€consider.€€òòSee,€e.g.,óó€òòHartsell€v.€Fort€Sanders€Regional€Med.€Ctr.óó,€905€S.W.2d€944,€949€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1995);€òòWilliam€Sturm€v.€Evelyn€Hunnicuttóó,€No.€€01A01„9201„CH„00003€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Nashville,ÏOct.€7,€1992);€òòInman€v.€Inmanóó,€840€S.W.2d€927,€930€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€This€court€is€bound€by€the€record€asÏcertified€on€appeal€from€the€lower€court€clerk€and€judicially€Ô% ‡s ÔÔ%†s•Ôknows€only€that€which€appears€of€record.€€Neither€theÏuncertified€documents€accompanying€the€Rule€10€application€nor€the€documents€in€the€appendix€to€the€petitionerððsÏbrief€qualify€as€such.€ÌÌà àWith€respect€to€the€appendix€to€the€petitionerððs€brief,€it€bears€noting€that€the€contents€of€an€appendix€areÏlimited€to€documents€that€appear€in€the€record.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€28.€€Thus,€documents€that€do€notÏappear€in€the€record€are€not€even€legitimately€included€in€an€appendix.Ì EÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCounsel€for€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€lower€courtððs€actions€have€denied€the€petitioner€his€right€toÏcounsel€of€his€choosing€in€violation€of€the€Sixth€Amendment.€€Any€such€right€has€not€been€implicated€at€this€stage.€ÏThe€court€has€not€discharged€the€petitionerððs€post„conviction€counsel.€€As€the€case€presently€stands,€Attorney€HardinÏis€the€òòde€factoóónext€friend€and€Attorneys€Mitchell,€Howser,€Hardin€and€Hill€are€counsel€of€record.€€Attorney€Loy€hasÏnot€been€appointed€in€preference€to€any€of€these€individuals;€he€is€merely€the€attorney€òòad€litemóó€for€the€limitedÏpurpose€of€the€competency€inquiry.€€If€the€court€does€at€some€point€disqualify€the€petitionerððs€counsel,€then€theÏpetitioner€may€then€present€any€Sixth€Amendment€claim€of€this€nature€that€he€believes€exists.€€Before€doing€so,Ïhowever,€the€petitionerððs€counsel€may€wish€to€review€òòCaruthers€v.€Stateóó,€814€S.W.2d€64,€69€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1991),€in€which€this€court€said,€consistent€with€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€that€the€Sixth€Amendment€doesÏnot€apply€to€post„conviction€proceedings.Ìnoqrtuvw ÿÿ?AIQYaiqyIndent2(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1) WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€first€three€recusal€issues€presented€on€appeal€were€raised€and€addressed€in€the€petitionerððs€secondÏrequest€for€recusal.€€The€fourth€issue€was€not€raised€as€a€basis€for€recusal€below.€€The€petitionerððs€first€request€forÏrecusal€has€not€been€included€in€the€record.€€Apparently,€the€first€request€was€in€the€form€of€a€letter€sent€to€the€courtÏwhich€was€then€filed€with€the€clerk€when€received€by€the€court.€€A€document€appearing€to€be€a€copy€of€this€letterÏappear€in€the€appendix€to€the€petitionerððs€brief€but€not€in€the€record€itself.€€As€discussed€in€note€6€above,€documentsÏappearing€in€the€appendix€but€not€the€appellate€record€are€not€properly€before€the€appellate€court.€€We€have€notÏconsidered€any€information€or€allegations€contained€in€the€first€request€for€recusal,€except€insofar€as€they€were€alsoÏraised€in€the€second€request.Ìnoqrtuvw ÿÿ?AIQYaiqyIndent3(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a) “Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€stated€in€notes€6€and€12€above,€the€petitionerððs€first€request€for€recusal€is€not€properly€before€us€asÏpart€of€the€appellate€record.€€The€order€denying€it€is,€however.€€It€is€apparent€from€the€record€that€the€trial€judgeððsÏformer€employment€was€at€issue€in€both€the€first€and€second€motions.€€The€judgeððs€findings€in€her€first€order€areÏtherefore€pertinent€to€resolution€of€this€issue.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€eôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€recognize€that€a€criminal€defendantððs€constitutional€right€to€jury€trial€prevents€judicial€notice€fromÏoperating€as€a€conclusive€determination€of€the€fact€noticed.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Cohen,€òòet€al.óó,€at€ðð€2.01[8][c].€€However,Ïwhen€the€issue€in€a€criminal€case€is€one€to€be€determined€by€the€court,€rather€than€a€jury,€the€courtððs€act€of€takingÏjudicial€notice€is€coterminous€with€its€acceptance,€in€its€role€as€finder€of€fact,€of€the€noticed€fact€as€conclusivelyÏdetermined.€€Such€is€the€case€here.ÌPtPtHHØ(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  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€eÔÔ€e¼ÔÑ#€¼d#ÑÑ#€¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€©XXdì»»d8Ñà@ àÔ€eîÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÔ€e¼ÔÌÓ  Óà àà àAugust€15,€2001€SessionÌÔ€eXÔÌò òÔ€e¼ÔJESSE€C.€MINOR€by€and€through€counsel,€Hal€Ô_ÔHardinÔ_Ô€v.ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ€eXÔó óÌÌà@ àò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÌà@ àNo.€97„C„2096(A)€€€€€€Cheryl€Blackburn,€Judge€ÌÌÌà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÌÌà@ àNo.€M2001„00545„CCA„R10„PC€€„€Ô_ÔFiledÔ_Ô€December€5,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÌó óÌÓ  ÓWe€accepted€this€extraordinary€appeal,€òòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10,€to€review€certain€pre„hearingÏactions€of€the€Davidson€County€Criminal€Court€in€this€post„conviction€case.€€€Our€grant€of€reviewÏextends€to€these€issues:€€(1)€whether€a€ð ðnext€friendðð€may€file€a€post„conviction€petition€on€behalfÏof€an€incompetent€prisoner;€(2)€if€so,€may€the€post„conviction€court,€òòÔ_ÔsuaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsponteÔ_Ôóó,€order€a€mentalÏevaluation€of€the€prisoner€or€conduct€other€inquiries€into€the€matter€to€determine€whether€the€ð ðnextÏfriendðð€petition€was€properly€filed€on€the€prisonerððs€behalf;€and€(3)€whether€the€court€belowÏproperly€denied€the€petitionerððs€motion€for€recusal.€€We€conclude€that€we€improvidently€grantedÏextraordinary€review€in€part,€but€we€otherwise€affirm€the€rulings€of€the€lower€court€and€remand€forÏfurther€proceedings.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€and€Remanded.ó óÌÌÓ  Óòò€James€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€H.€Wellesóó€andÏòòJoe€G.€Riley,€JJ.óó,€joined.ÌÌJ.€G.€Mitchell,€III,€Murfreesboro,€Tennessee,€and€Hugh€C.€Ô_ÔHowserÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€forÏthe€Appellant,€Jesse€C.€Minor.ÌÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;ÏVictor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Roger€D.€Moore,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÏGeneral,€for€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.ÌÓ  ÓÌà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÓ  Óà0 àà0 àÔ€fÔÓÓÌà àà àÔ€eÔà@ àò òFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óÌÓÓà àà àAn€understanding€of€the€procedural€history€of€this€case€is€essential€toÏcomprehending€the€outcome€of€this€appeal.€€€Equally€critical€is€an€understanding€of€the€variousÏrepresentative€capacities€of€the€involved€parties€and€of€counsel.ÌÔ_ÔÌà àà àIn€1997,€the€petitioner€was€charged€with€three€counts€of€rape€of€a€child,€two€countsÏof€aggravated€sexual€battery,€and€one€count€of€aggravated€assault.€€òòSee€State€v.€Jesse€Cleo€Minoróó,ÏNo.€M1998„00424„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App,€Nashville,€Dec.€15,€1999).€ÏPursuant€to€settlement€with€the€state,€Minor€entered€a€best„interest€guilty€plea€on€May€21,€1998€toÏone€count€of€attempted€rape€of€a€child€and€received€an€eight„year,€Range€I€sentence.€€The€remainingÍcharges€were€dismissed.€€At€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€imposed€incarceration€as€theÏmanner€of€service€of€the€sentence.€€òòId.óó€€On€direct€appeal,€we€affirmed€the€trial€courtððs€denial€ofÏprobation.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€4„8.ÌÌà àà àThe€mother€of€the€minor€victim€in€the€criminal€case€filed€a€civil€lawsuit€in€theÏDavidson€County€Circuit€Court€against€the€petitioner,€his€wife,€and€his€co„defendant,€StephanieÏPatton,€in€the€criminal€case.€€The€lawsuit€alleged€sexual€assault€of€the€daughter€and€sought€theÏaward€of€money€damages.€€òòAlana€Dowell€v.€Jesse€C.€Minoróó,€No.€M2000„00378„COA„R9„CV,€slipÏop.€at€2€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Nashville,€Apr.€26,€2000).€€€€ÌÌà àà àA€review€of€the€record€in€this€case,€which€contains€discovery€material€from€the€civilÏcase€that€is€exhibited€to€the€post„conviction€petition,€along€with€the€court€of€appealsðð€opinion€in€theÏcivil€case,€reflects€the€involvement€of€several€attorneys€in€the€civil€case.€€Although€the€information€isÏnot€entirely€consistent,€the€following€appearances€of€counsel€are€reflected€at€various€stages€of€thoseÏproceedings.€€Attorneys€Hal€D.€Hardin€and€Hugh€C.€Howser,€Jr.€have€appeared€for€Mr.€Minor€inÏthe€civil€case.€€€Attorneys€Howser€and€Kenneth€Mark€Bryant€have€appeared€for€Mrs.€Minor,€theÏpetitionerððs€wife,€and€Leann€Morrison,€the€petitionerððs€daughter€and€guardian€òòad€litemóó€in€the€civilÏcase.€€In€one€proceeding,€Attorneys€Howser€and€Hardin€are€reflected€as€appearing€for€ð ðtheÏdefendants,ðð€which€technically€would€include€the€co„defendant€from€the€criminal€case,€Ms.€Patton,Ïas€well€as€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Minor.€€It€further€appears€that€Attorneys€Howser€and€Bryant€practice€in€theÏsame€law€firm.€ÌÌà àà àOn€February€2,€2000,€the€petitioner,€by€and€through€his€ð ðnext€friend,ðð€LeannÏMorrison,€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€This€pleading€was€filed€by€attorney€J.G.ÏMitchell,€III€as€counsel€of€record.€€The€post„conviction€court€dismissed€this€petition€as€prematurelyÏfiled.× ƒ‚ ××  ×€€Apparently,€no€appeal€of€that€dismissal€was€taken.ÌÌà àà àOn€April€20,€2000,€the€petitioner,€through€Ms.€Morrison€as€ð ðnext€friend,ðð€againÏfiled€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€Attorney€Mitchell€filed€this€action€as€counsel€of€record.€ÏThe€state€moved€to€dismiss€the€petition,€arguing€that€the€petition€was€improperly€filed€through€aÏð ðnext€friend,ðð€that€the€petitioner€was€at€that€time€incompetent€to€maintain€the€action,€and€that€theÏstatute€of€limitations€would€be€tolled€during€the€petitionerððs€incompetency.€€Although€a€writtenÏorder€of€that€dismissal€does€not€appear€in€the€record,€the€court€minutes€reflect€that€the€stateððsÏmotion€to€dismiss€was€granted€on€June€30,€2000.€€Other€information€in€the€record€indicates€that€theÏbasis€for€that€dismissal€was€the€petitionerððs€ð ðnext€friendðð€status,€which€the€trial€court€ruled€was€notÏa€permissible€manner€in€which€to€bring€a€post„conviction€action.€€As€with€the€previous€filing,€itÏappears€that€no€appeal€of€the€dismissal€was€taken.ÌÌà àà àOn€July€13,€2000,€the€petitioner€filed€a€third€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€styledÏð ðJesse€C.€Minor,€individually,€and€by€and€through€counsel,€Hal€D.€Hardin€v.€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€ÏAttorney€Mitchell€filed€this€action€as€counsel€of€record.€€This€pleading€alleges€that€the€petitionerÏwas€assisted€in€preparing€it€by€Attorneys€Hardin,€Howser,€Mitchell,€Bryant,€and€Paige€AbernathyÏHill.€€Attorneys€Hardin,€Howser,€Mitchell,€and€Hill€have€at€some€point€signed€post„convictionÏpleadings€found€in€the€appellate€record,€and€all€four€have€listed€themselves€as€counsel€of€record€onÏthe€petitionerððs€appellate€brief.€€Attorneys€Howser,€Bryant,€and€Hill€all€practice€in€the€same€firm,Ïmembers€of€which€have€represented€the€petitioner,€his€wife,€and€his€daughter€in€the€civil€action.ÌÌà àà àThis€third€petition€alleges€that€the€petitioner€is€in€poor€health€and€suffers€fromÏirreversible€dementia€that€seriously€affects€his€cognitive€abilities.€€The€petitioner€attacks€hisÏattempted€rape€of€a€child€conviction€based€upon€four€allegations:€(1)€he€was€incompetent€and€unableÏto€understand€the€prior€proceedings€and€therefore€incapable€of€entering€a€voluntary€guilty€plea;€(2)Ïthe€state€failed€to€disclose€material€exculpatory€evidence;€(3)€false€and/or€materially€misleadingÏstatements€were€offered€to€the€trial€court€by€the€victim€and€her€mother;€and€(4)€trial€counsel€did€notÏprovide€effective€assistance.€€Based€upon€statements€in€the€record,€at€least€one€of€his€attorneysÏbelieves€that€a€post„conviction€petition€successful€in€overturning€the€guilty€plea€that€underlies€theÏpetitionerððs€conviction€will€positively€affect€the€civil€litigation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€803(22)Ï(judgment€of€previous€conviction€exception€to€hearsay€rule).€€òòBut€cf.€óóTenn.€R.€Evid.€410(2)€(òònoloÏcontendereóó€plea€is€inadmissible€against€party€who€made€it);€òòHelen€Bell€v.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.ÏIns.€Co.óó,€No.€01A01„9802„CV„00079€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€22,€1999)€(although€courtÏdeclined€to€rule€on€admissibility€of€best„interest€plea€of€guilty€to€facilitation€of€arson€in€civil€caseÏseeking€recovery€for€loss€under€homeownerððs€policy,€it€held€that€plea€did€not,€as€a€matter€of€law,Ïpreclude€insuredððs€recovery€on€policy€that€excluded€losses€occasioned€by€action€by€or€at€theÏdirection€of€the€insured).× ƒƒ ××  ×€€In€any€event,€should€the€petitioner€ultimately€be€granted€the€reliefÏrequested€in€his€post„conviction€petition,€he€would€face€criminal€charges€more€numerous€and€aÏpotential€effective€sentence€of€much€greater€length€than€the€one€conviction€and€sentence€he€presentlyÏhas.ÌÌà àà àA€hearing€on€the€merits€of€the€post„conviction€case€was€scheduled€for€October€11,Ï2000.€€At€the€beginning€of€that€hearing,€the€trial€court€expressed€concerns€that€the€petitionerððsÏattorneys€in€the€post„conviction€case€had€conflicting€interests€due€to€their€representation€of€theÏpetitioner€and€various€family€members€in€the€civil€proceeding.€€Attorneys€Hardin€and€HowserÏacknowledged€involvement€in€the€civil€case.€€Attorney€Mitchell€admitted€that,€although€he€did€notÏrepresent€a€party€in€the€civil€case,€he€had€attended€and€observed€a€civil€deposition€of€the€victim€inÏorder€to€observe€her€demeanor€because€he€and€Attorney€Hardin€thought€it€was€a€ð ðgood€idea.ðð€€It€isÏapparent€from€the€record€that€the€lower€court€was€concerned€that€the€petitionerððs€best€interests€in€theÏcivil€case€and€criminal€case€were€divergent.€€Specifically,€the€relief€sought€in€the€post„convictionÏcase,€setting€aside€of€the€conviction€and€judgment,€although€possibly€beneficial€to€the€petitionerððsÏinterests€in€the€civil€case,€might€ultimately€result€in€the€imposition€of€multiple€convictions€and€aÏmuch€greater€effective€sentence€in€the€criminal€case.€€Because€of€these€divergent€interests,€the€lowerÏcourt€perceived€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel,€if€the€same€in€both€proceedings,€would€have€conflictingÏinterests€in€the€two€actions.€€Based€upon€this€concern,€the€lower€court€expressed€its€intent€to€appointÏan€attorney€òòad€litemóó€and€order€an€independent€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€to€determine€hisÏcompetency€to€choose€counsel€and€strategy€in€the€post„conviction€case.× ƒ„ ××  ×€€The€record€reflects€thatÏthe€court€entered€a€written€order€for€the€petitioner€to€be€evaluated.€€Apparently,€the€court€also€enteredÏan€order€appointing€Attorney€Jeffrey€Loy€as€attorney€òòad€litemóó€to€assist€with€the€mental€evaluation,Ïalthough€this€order€is€not€in€the€appellate€record€certified€to€us€by€the€clerk€of€the€lower€court.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€21,€2000,€the€petitioner€filed€a€motion€to€reconsider€the€ordersÏappointing€the€attorney€òòad€litemóó€and€requiring€the€mental€evaluation.€€Curiously,€the€caption€of€thisÍpleading€styled€the€case€ð ðJesse€C.€Minor,€òòb/n/f€Leann€Morrisonóó€and€by€and€through€counsel,€HalÏHardin€v.€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€This€was€the€first€attempt€to€inject€Ms.ÏMorrison€as€ð ðnext€friendðð€into€the€third€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.× ƒ… ××  ×€€A€memorandumÏaccompanying€that€motion€complained€of€the€trial€courtððs€ð ðprevious€rulingðð× ƒ† ××  ×€that€€Ms.€MorrisonÏcould€not€proceed€as€ð ðnext€friend.ðð€€Following€a€hearing,€the€court€denied€this€motion€toÏreconsider€by€written€order€on€December€4,€2000.ÌÌà àà àOn€or€about€December€7,€2000,€petitionerððs€counsel€sent€a€letter€to€the€trial€judgeÏrequesting€that€she€recuse€herself€because€she€had€served€as€an€assistant€district€attorney€at€the€timeÏof€the€offense€to€which€the€petitioner€eventually€pleaded€guilty,€and€there€was€an€appearance€ofÏimpropriety€and€a€question€of€perceived€bias.× ƒ‡ ××  ×€€The€lower€court€entered€an€order€on€December€12,Ï2000€denying€the€request€for€recusal€and€amended€that€order€on€December€14,€2000.€€As€a€factualÏpredicate€for€its€denial,€the€judge€found€that€she€had€no€role€in€her€former€employment€in€theÏinvestigation,€indictment€and€prosecution€of€the€petitionerððs€underlying€case.€€Further,€she€foundÏthat€the€indictment€was€not€returned€until€over€one€year€after€her€appointment€to€the€bench.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€filed€a€motion€in€the€lower€court€for€certification€of€an€interlocutoryÏappeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€9€(interlocutory€review€by€permission€of€the€trial€and€appellateÏcourts).€€Although€this€motion€is€not€preserved€in€the€appellate€record€in€its€entirety,× ƒˆ ××  ×€evidently€theÏpetitioner€sought€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€rulings€that€Ms.€Morrison€could€not€proceed€as€theÏpetitionerððs€ð ðnext€friend,ðð€appointing€the€attorney€òòad€litemóó,€and€ordering€the€mental€evaluation.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€then€followed€up€with€a€motion€for€recusal€on€January€10,€2001.€€ThisÏmotion€raised€three€bases€for€recusal:€(1)€the€appearance€of€partiality€due€to€the€trial€judgeððs€formerÏemployment€in€the€district€attorneyððs€office;€(2)€the€appearance€of€bias€because€the€trial€judge€metÏwith€one€of€the€petitionerððs€potential€witnesses€in€chambers€without€the€parties€or€counsel€beingÏpresent;€and€(3)€the€trial€judge€conducted€an€investigation€into€the€court€records€of€the€collateral€civilÏproceedings.ÌÌà àà àOn€March€7,€2001,€the€trial€court€denied€both€the€petition€for€interlocutory€appealÏand€the€motion€for€recusal.€€On€that€same€date,€the€petitioner€filed€an€application€for€extraordinaryÏappeal€with€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€10.€€We€granted€the€application€to€review€three€issues:ÌÌÓ(€ ‰noqrtuvw (Óà8 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àWhether€a€ð ðnext€friendðð€may€file€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€onÏbehalf€of€an€incompetent€prisoner;Ìà8 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àIf€so,€may€a€trial€court,€òòsua€sponteóó,€order€a€mental€evaluation€of€the€prisonerÏor€conduct€other€inquiries€into€the€matter€to€determine€whether€the€ð ðnextÏfriendðð€petition€was€properly€filed€on€the€prisonerððs€behalf;€andÌà8 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àWhether€the€trial€judge€in€this€case€properly€denied€the€petitionerððs€motionÏto€recuse.ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€have€submitted€their€briefs€and€oral€arguments,€and€the€case€is€nowÏbefore€us€for€disposition.ÌÌà@ àò òIÌó óÌà àà àThe€first€issue€upon€which€we€accepted€review€of€this€case€is€whether€a€ð ðnextÏfriendðð€may€file€a€post„conviction€petition€on€behalf€of€an€incompetent€prisoner.€€This€issueÏpertains€to€the€petitionerððs€complaint€that€the€trial€court€prevented€his€daughter,€Ms.€Morrison,€fromÏmaintaining€the€action€as€his€ð ðnext€friend.ðð€€Upon€consideration,€we€conclude€that€weÏimprovidently€granted€extraordinary€review€of€this€question,€as€it€is€not€justiciable€in€this€case.ÌÌà àà àThe€first€two€post„conviction€actions€were€brought€by€Leann€Morrison€as€ð ðnextÏfriendðð€of€the€petitioner.€€Both€of€those€petitions€were€dismissed,€and€in€neither€case€does€a€noticeÏof€appeal€appear€to€have€been€filed.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4€(notice€of€appeal€must€be€filed€withinÏ30€days€after€entry€of€judgment).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€third€and€present€action€was€filed,€ð ðJesse€C.€Minor,€individually,€and€by€andÏthrough€counsel,€Hal€D.€Hardin€v.€State€of€Tennessee.ðð€€The€allegations€of€the€petition€includeÏclaims€that€the€petitioner€himself€is€incompetent€to€bring€the€action€on€his€own€behalf€and€that€hisÏattorney,€Mr.€Hardin,€is€filing€the€action€on€his€behalf.€€The€allegations€make€it€clear€that€Mr.ÏHardin€is€acting€in€a€representative€capacity.€€We€believe€the€allegations€are€such€that€Mr.€Hardin€isÏessentially€a€òòde€factoóó€ð ðnext€friendðð€although€not€designated€as€such.€€Significantly,€this€action€wasÏòònotóó€filed€by€Ms.€Morrison€as€ð ðnext€friendðð€of€the€petitioner.× ƒŠ ××  ×ÌÌà àà àIn€the€present€action,€there€has€been€no€ruling€that€the€petitioner€may€not€proceedÏthrough€a€ð ðnext€friend,ðð€whether€that€individual€is€Mr.€Hardin€or€Ms.€Morrison.€€Indeed,€theÏpresent€action€has€been€maintained€from€its€inception€to€the€present€time€with€Mr.€Hardin€acting€asÏthe€petitionerððs€òòde€factoóó€ð ðnext€friend,ðð€and€the€judge€of€the€lower€court€has€allowed€the€petition€toÏproceed€in€that€form€notwithstanding€her€ruling€in€the€prior€action€that€the€petitioner€could€notÏproceed€through€a€ð ðnext€friend.ðð€€Without€a€ruling€that€the€petition€in€the€present€case€may€not€beÍmaintained€through€a€ð ðnext€friend,ðð€the€question€whether€a€ð ðnext€friendðð€may€maintain€a€post„conviction€petition€is€not€justiciable€in€this€proceeding.× ƒ‹ ××  ×€€ÌÌà àà àAlthough€this€litigation€is€related€to,€and€even€resultant€from,€the€lower€courtððs€rulingÏòòin€the€prior€actionóó€that€a€post„conviction€petition€may€not€be€maintained€by€a€ð ðnext€friend,ðð€reviewÏof€the€adverse€ruling€of€the€lower€court€should€have€been€pursued€via€direct€appeal€of€the€priorÏaction.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b)€(appeal€as€of€right€from€final€judgment€in€post„convictionÏproceeding).€€ÌÌà àà àWe€must€conclude€that€we€improvidently€granted€review€of€this€question.ÌÌà@ àò òIIÌó óÌà àà àThe€second€issue€is€whether€a€post„conviction€court€may,€òòsua€sponteóó,€order€a€mentalÏevaluation€of€the€prisoner€or€conduct€other€inquiries€into€the€matter€to€determine€whether€the€ð ðnextÏfriendðð€petition€was€properly€filed€on€the€prisonerððs€behalf.€€We€agreed€to€review€this€issue€only€ifÏwe€first€determined€that€a€ð ðnext€friendðð€may€maintain€a€post„conviction€petition€on€behalf€of€anÏincompetent€prisoner.€€Because€we€have€held€that€there€is€no€justiciable€question€of€the€propriety€ofÏa€ð ðnext€friendðð€petition€before€us,€the€second€issue,€as€stated,€is€likewise€not€justiciable.€€WeÏbelieve,€however,€that€examination€of€a€closely€related€question€is€appropriate.€€That€question€isÏwhether€the€lower€court€properly€entered€a€òòsua€sponteóó€order€for€a€mental€evaluation€of€the€allegedlyÏincompetent€prisoner€to€assist€the€court€in€determining€(1)€whether€the€petitioner€is€competent€toÏmake€decisions€regarding€pursuit€of€the€case,€and€(2)€if€not,€whether€the€petitionerððs€best€interestsÏare€being€served€by€his€present€attorneys.€ÌÌà àà àThe€post„conviction€petition,€brought€ð ðby€and€through€counselðð€on€the€petitionerððsÏbehalf€by€one€of€his€several€attorneys,€alleges€that€the€petitioner€ð ðlack[s]€the€requisite€mentalÏcapacity€and€competenceðð€to€bring€the€action€on€his€own.€€Because€of€the€involvement€of€several€ofÏthe€petitionerððs€post„conviction€attorneys€in€varying€capacities€in€the€civil€case€arising€out€of€theÏsame€underlying€facts,€the€lower€court€became€concerned€about€possible€conflicting€interests€of€theÏpetitionerððs€goals€in€the€post„conviction€and€civil€cases€as€well€as€those€of€counsel€in€representingÏthe€petitioner€and/or€his€family€members€in€both€actions.€€For€this€reason,€the€lower€court€ordered€aÏmental€evaluation€of€the€petitioner€at€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institute€to€determine€hisÏð ðpresent€mental€competency€to€assist€counsel€and€participate€meaningfully€in€his€pending€post„conviction€petition€.€.€.€.ðð€€Although€it€does€not€appear€in€the€appellate€record,€we€discern€that€theÏlower€court€entered€a€companion€order€appointing€Attorney€Loy€to€assist€with€the€mentalÏexamination€in€the€role€of€attorney€òòad€litemóó.× ƒŒ ××  ×€€In€the€absence€of€the€pertinent€order€from€theÍappellate€record,€we€are€unable€to€know€what€the€lower€court€envisioned€as€the€precise€contours€ofÏthe€attorney€òòad€litemóóððs€role.€€From€statements€made€by€the€court€at€a€hearing€transcribed€and€placedÏin€the€appellate€record,€however,€it€appears€that€the€court€anticipated€Attorney€Loyððs€role€as€a€dualÏone€of€court„appointed€advocate€and€interim€guardian€for€the€petitioner€during€the€mentalÏexamination€and€hearing€on€competency.€ÌÌà àà àThis€issue€is€a€complex€one.€€We€begin€with€an€examination€of€the€lower€courtððsÏauthority€to€address,€òòsua€sponteóó,€questions€related€to€best€interests€of€an€incompetent€petitioner€andÏconflicting€interests€of€counsel.ÌÌà àà àWe€understand€the€basis€for€the€lower€courtððs€concern€about€the€possibility€ofÏconflicting€interests.€€The€petitionerððs€interests€in€the€civil€litigation€are€likely€better€served€byÏavoiding€the€guilty€plea€he€made€in€the€prior€criminal€case,€while€his€interests€in€the€criminalÏlitigation€are€perhaps€better€served€by€preserving€the€plea.€€Moreover,€at€least€some€of€theÏpetitionerððs€post„conviction€attorneys€presently€or€previously€have€represented€members€of€theÏpetitionerððs€family€who€may€have€interests€in€preserving€the€estate€of€the€elderly€and€apparently€illÏpetitioner€via€the€petitionerððs€avoidance€of€the€guilty€plea€and€thereby€potential€avoidance€of€civilÏliability.€€If€the€petitioner€is€competent,€he€may€resolve€the€question€of€these€conflicting€interests€byÏchoosing€the€course€of€action€which€he€prefers.€€If€he€is€not,€these€decisions€should€be€made€by€aÏrepresentative€who€owes€him€an€undivided€duty€of€loyalty.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€lower€court€sought€to€determine€whether€the€petitioner€was€competent€to€makeÏthese€decisions,€and€if€not,€whether€his€interests€were€properly€being€protected€by€the€attorneysÏinvolved€in€representing€his€interests,€one€of€whom€stands€as€his€representative€in€this€action.€€ToÏthat€end,€the€court€ordered€the€mental€evaluation€and€appointed€Attorney€Loy€as€the€attorney€òòadÏlitemóó€for€purposes€of€the€competency€inquiry.€€ÌÌà àà àWith€respect€to€Attorney€Hardinððs€continuing€involvement€as€the€òòde€factoóó€ð ðnextÏfriendðð€of€the€petitioner,€our€supreme€court€has€said,ÌÌà8 àWhile€a€next€friend€may€in€a€certain€sense€be€a€volunteer€in€bringing€suit,€theÏcontinuance€of€the€exercise€of€his€function€is€within€the€power€of€the€court.€€It€is€inÏthe€province€of€the€court€of€pendency,€at€any€time,€to€inquire€into€his€fitness€toÏrepresent€the€interests€of€the€incompetent,€and€to€allow€or€direct€that€some€one€elseÏbe€substituted€in€his€place.€€ÌÌòòWilliams€v.€Gaitheróó,€139€Tenn.€587,€591,€202€S.W.€917,€918€(1918)€(citing€òòKingsbury€v.€Buckneróó,Ï134€U.€S.€650,€10€S.€Ct.€638€(1890)).€€Therefore,€the€court€had€the€authority€to€inquire€into€theÏpropriety€of€Attorney€Hardinððs€involvement€as€representative€of€the€petitioner,€and€if€necessary,Ïappoint€a€substitute€representative.€€ÌÌà àà àSimilarly,€a€court€may€disqualify€counsel€if€it€finds€that€counselððs€representation€ofÏa€party€is€contrary€to€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility.€€òòIn€re€Ellisóó,€822€S.W.2d€602€(Tenn.ÏCt.€App.€1991).€€The€lower€court€in€this€case€has€not,€at€this€juncture,€disqualified€any€of€theÏpetitionerððs€attorneys€from€further€representation,€although€it€has€appointed€Attorney€Loy€in€a€dualÏcapacity€of€guardian€and€advocate€for€purposes€of€the€competency€inquiry.ÌÌà àà àIn€view€of€the€question€of€potential€conflicts€affecting€Attorney€Hardin€as€òòde€factoóóÏnext€friend€and€other€members€of€the€petitionerððs€legal€team,€we€are€convinced€that€the€appointmentÏof€Attorney€Loy€as€guardian€and€advocate€for€a€limited€purpose€was€a€proper€exercise€of€the€courtððsÏauthority.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoins€v.€Yowellóó,€41€Tenn.€App.€280,€286,€293€S.W.2d€251,€254€(1956)Ï(appointment€of€a€guardian€òòad€litemóó€is€for€purpose€of€protecting€the€incompetent€in€the€litigation).ÌÌà àà àOnce€the€competency€inquiry€is€completed,€Mr.€Minor€will€either€be€before€the€courtÏas€a€competent€party,€in€which€case€he€may€retain€or€discharge€his€present€counsel,€or€alternatively,Ïhe€will€be€before€the€court€as€an€incompetent€party,€in€which€case€the€court€may€allow€him€toÏproceed€through€Attorney€Hardin€as€his€representative€or€appoint€Attorney€Loy€or€some€otherÏindividual€as€his€guardian€òòad€litemóó€for€the€remaining€litigation.× ƒ ××  ×€€If€the€latter€situation€ofÏincompetency€arises€and€if€the€petitioner€is€not€indigent,€the€petitionerððs€representative€would€haveÏthe€duty€of€choosing€counsel€to€represent€Mr.€Minor,€subject€to€the€courtððs€authority€to€dischargeÏany€attorney€whose€representation€would€run€afoul€of€the€Code€of€Professional€Responsibility.ÌÌà àà àHaving€determined€that€the€court€had€the€authority€to€inquire€into€competency€andÏconflicting€interests,€we€next€consider€the€courtððs€authority€for€ordering€the€mental€examination€as€aÏmeans€of€effecting€the€inquiries.€€The€order€directing€the€mental€examination€does€not€state€anyÏunderlying€legal€authority.€€During€the€hearing€which€preceded€this€order,€the€court€posited€that€itsÏauthority€for€the€examination€was€ð ðnot€through€your€regular€competency€to€stand€trial€statute,€.€.€.Ï[T]his€more€comes€under€the€inherent€authority€of€the€Court€.€.€.€as€opposed€to€any€pigeon€hole€thatÏI€can€find€.€.€.€.ðð€€In€a€subsequent€order€denying€reconsideration€of€the€ruling,€the€court€held€thatÏCode€section€33„7„301€provided€authority€for€the€courtððs€òòsua€sponteóó€action.€€ÌÌà àà àSection€33„7„301€provides€for€mental€examination€of€criminal€defendants€and€post„conviction€petitioners€in€limited€circumstances.€€The€pertinent€portions€of€that€statute€provide:ÌÌà8 à(a)(1)à0 àWhen€a€defendant€charged€with€a€criminal€offense€is€believed€to€beÏincompetent€to€stand€trial,€or€there€is€a€question€about€the€defendant's€mentalÏcapacity€at€the€time€of€the€commission€of€the€crime,€the€criminal,€circuit,€orÏgeneral€sessions€court€judge€may,€upon€such€judge[ðð]s€own€motion€or€uponÏpetition€by€the€district€attorney€general€or€by€the€attorney€for€the€defendantÏand€after€hearing,€order€the€defendant€to€be€evaluated€on€an€outpatient€basis.Ï.€.€.ÌÓ(€ Žnoqrtuvw (ÓØØà8 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àAt€any€stage€of€a€felony€criminal€proceeding,€including€a€pre„trial€hearing,Ïtrial,€sentencing,€or€post„conviction€proceeding,€the€state€may€move€orÏpetition€the€court€to€authorize€the€district€attorney€general€to€designate€aÏqualified€expert€to€examine€the€defendant€if€the€defendant€gives€notice€thatÏthe€defendant€intends€to€offer€testimony€about€the€defendant's€mentalÏcondition,€whether€in€support€of€a€defense€of€insanity€or€for€any€otherÏpurpose.€.€.€.ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€33„7„301(a)(1)„(2)€(2001).€€Simply€put,€the€court€may€on€its€own€motion€orderÏa€mental€evaluation€in€a€trial€proceeding,€but€it€has€no€specific€authority€under€this€statute€to€do€so€inÏa€post„conviction€proceeding.€€The€post„conviction€courtððs€reliance€on€section€33„7„301€asÏauthority€for€the€mental€examination€is€misplaced.ÌÌà àà àThis€does€not€end€our€inquiry,€however.€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Evidence€706€providesÏthat,€in€bench„tried€cases,€ð ðthe€court€may€on€its€own€motion€or€on€the€motion€of€any€party€enter€anÏorder€to€show€cause€why€expert€witnesses€should€not€be€appointed€and€may€request€the€parties€toÏsubmit€nominations.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€706.€€Moreover,€Supreme€Court€Rule€28,€the€rule€governingÏpost„conviction€cases,€allows€the€court€the€latitude€to€enter€such€orders€ð ðas€are€necessary€to€theÏefficient€management€of€the€caseðð€and€ð ðas€may€be€required.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€28,€ððððÏ6(B)(3)(e),€6(B)(7).€€We€believe€that€these€provisions€gave€the€lower€court€the€legal€authority€toÏorder€the€mental€evaluation.ÌÌà àà àThe€next€question€is€whether€that€authority€was€properly€exercised.€€Rule€706Ïprovides,€ð ð[T]he€court€may€on€its€own€motion€or€on€the€motion€of€any€party€enter€an€order€to€showÏcause€why€expert€witnesses€should€not€be€appointed€and€may€request€the€parties€to€submitÏnominations.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€706.€€In€most€cases,€the€appointed€experts€should€be€agreed€upon€byÏthe€parties,€although€the€rule€does€allow€the€court€to€appoint€experts€of€its€own€choosing.€òòId.óó€€ÌÌà àà àThe€lower€court€did€not€follow€the€Rule€706€procedure€of€entering€a€preliminaryÏshow€cause€order€and€permitting€the€parties€to€submit€nominations€for€the€mental€evaluation€expert.€ÏUpon€consideration,€we€believe€that€any€error€is€òòde€minimusóó€because€the€lower€court€afforded€theÏparties€the€opportunity€to€address€the€propriety€of€the€mental€evaluation.€€This€took€place€at€whatÏwas€originally€scheduled€to€be€the€evidentiary€hearing€and€evolved€into€essentially€a€òòde€factoóó€showÏcause€hearing.€€The€record€reflects€that€the€petitioner€was€allowed€a€thorough€opportunity€to€opposeÏthe€mental€evaluation€at€this€hearing,€which€he€did€at€some€length.€€The€petitioner€was€afforded€anÏadditional€opportunity€to€voice€his€opposition€at€the€subsequent€hearing€on€the€motion€toÏreconsider,€and€he€also€did€so€in€an€extensive€memorandum€filed€with€the€court.€ÌÌà àà àLikewise,€we€see€no€prejudice€to€the€petitioner€in€the€courtððs€choice€of€expertÏwithout€accepting€nominations.€€The€court€ordered€the€evaluation€at€Middle€Tennessee€MentalÏHealth€Institute,€one€of€the€entities€authorized€to€perform€mental€evaluations€in€criminal€cases€or€onÏmotion€of€a€party€in€a€post„conviction€case.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€33„7„301€(2001).€€Even€thoughÏwe€have€held€above€that€section€33„7„301€does€not€apply€to€post„conviction€mental€evaluations€onÏthe€courtððs€motion,€that€statute€does€provide€guidance€in€determining€the€propriety€of€the€trialÍcourtððs€choice€of€expert.€€We€therefore€hold€that€the€choice€of€expert€was€a€reasonable€and€logicalÏone.ÌÌà àà àWe€decline€to€find€error€in€the€lower€courtððs€order€of€a€mental€examination,Ïappointment€of€the€attorney€òòad€litemóó,€and€inquiry€into€competency€and€conflicting€interests.€ÌÌà@ àò òIIIó óÌà àÌà àà àFinally,€we€consider€whether€the€court€below€properly€denied€the€petitionerððs€motionÏfor€recusal.€€The€petitioner€claims€that€recusal€is€required€because€(1)€the€judge€was€previouslyÏemployed€in€a€supervisory€position€with€the€district€attorneyððs€office;€(2)€the€judge€met€with€one€ofÏthe€petitionerððs€prospective€expert€witnesses€in€chambers€without€the€presence€of€counsel;€(3)€theÏtrial€court€made€an€òòex€parteóó€investigation€by€reviewing€the€circuit€court€file€in€the€civil€case;€and€(4)Ïthe€trial€court€has€issued€ð ðegregious€rulingsðð€and€has€not€adhered€to€Supreme€Court€Rule€28.× ƒ ××  ×ÌÌà àà àRecusal€is€appropriate€whenever€a€trial€judgeððs€impartiality€can€be€reasonablyÏquestioned.€€Tenn€R.€Sup.€Ct.€10,€Canon€3(E)(1);€òòState€v.€Cashóó,€867€S.W.2d€741,€749€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€A€trial€judge's€denial€of€a€motion€to€recuse€will€be€upheld€absent€a€showing€of€abuse€ofÏdiscretion.€€òòCashóó,€867€S.W.2d€at€749.€€Reasons€which€warrant€recusal€include:ÌÌà8 à(a)€à0 àthe€judge€has€a€personal€bias€or€prejudice€concerning€a€party€or€a€partyððsÏlawyer,€or€personal€knowledge€of€disputed€evidentiary€facts€concerning€theÏproceeding;€€ÌÓ(€ noqrtuvw  (Óà8 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà0 àthe€judge€served€as€a€lawyer€in€the€matter€in€controversy,€or€a€lawyer€withÏwhom€the€judge€previously€practiced€law€served€during€such€association€as€aÏlawyer€concerning€the€matter,€or€the€judge€has€been€a€material€witnessÏconcerning€it.€€Ìà8 àÌTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€10,€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,€Canon€3E(1)(a),€(b).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€support€of€his€first€argument€for€recusal,€the€petitioner€relied€in€part€on€the€lowerÏcourt€judgeððs€application€for€judicial€nomination.€€This€application€reflects€that€the€judge€was,Ïindeed,€fulfilling€a€supervisory€role€in€the€district€attorneyððs€office€prior€to€her€appointment.€€SheÏstated€in€the€application€that€she€ð ðsupervise[s]€the€Criminal€Court€and€General€Sessions€TeamÏAssistants€(approximately€19).ðð€€Her€practice€involved€ð ðcomplex€drug,€homicide,€and€other€typesÏof€cases€which€may€require€in„depth€investigation€and€preparation€[with€which€she]€works€closelyÏwith€the€Vice€and€Homicide€Divisions€of€the€Police€Department.ðð€€In€her€order€denying€the€firstÍrequest€for€recusal,× ƒ‘ ××  ×€the€judge€found€that€she€was€one€of€over€40€attorneys€in€the€district€attorneyððsÏoffice€at€the€time€the€petitioner€committed€his€crime€that€resulted€in€the€underlying€proceedings.€ÏShe€found€that€she€had€no€role€in€the€investigation,€indictment€and€prosecution€of€the€petitioner€inÏher€prior€employment€and€that€she€had€no€knowledge€of€the€facts€of€the€case€other€than€thoseÏgained€in€her€capacity€as€judge.€€She€also€found€that€she€had€been€appointed€to€the€bench€over€aÏyear€prior€to€the€return€of€the€petitionerððs€indictment.€€At€a€subsequent€hearing€on€the€issue,€theÏcourt€found€that€her€former€role€in€the€district€attorneyððs€office€did€not€include€supervisoryÏauthority€over€child€sex€abuse€cases.ÌÌà àà àIn€his€brief,€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€district€attorneyððs€office€was€activelyÏinvolved€in€the€case€against€the€petitioner€ð ð[a]lmost€from€the€inception€of€the€alleged€offense.ðð€€HeÏalso€claims€that€his€proof€at€the€post„conviction€evidentiary€hearing€will€involve€the€conduct€of€theÏdistrict€attorneyððs€office€and€one€particular€assistant€district€attorney,€and€the€judge€should€not€be€inÏthe€position€of€assessing€the€credibility€of€her€former€subordinate€employee.€€NotwithstandingÏthese€claims,€the€petitioner€has€not€demonstrated€that€anything€in€the€record€belies€the€lower€courtððsÏfindings€that€she€had€no€involvement,€whether€investigatory€or€supervisory,€with€the€petitionerððsÏcriminal€case€while€she€was€in€the€district€attorneyððs€office.ÌÌà àà àThe€Commentary€to€the€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct€says,ÌÌà8 àA€lawyer€in€a€government€agency€does€not€ordinarily€have€an€association€with€otherÏlawyers€employed€by€that€agency€within€the€meaning€of€Section€3(E)(1)(b);€a€judgeÏformerly€employed€by€a€government€agency,€however,€should€disqualify€himself€orÏherself€in€a€proceeding€if€the€judge's€impartiality€might€reasonably€be€questionedÏbecause€of€such€association.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€10,€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,€Canon€3E(1)(b)€(Commentary).€€ÌÌà àà àThis€Commentary€is€instructive€in€the€case€at€bar.€€The€judge€has€dispelled,€withoutÏcontradiction,€any€concerns€about€her€actual€involvement€as€a€prosecutor€or€supervisor€of€theÏprosecutor€in€this€case.€€The€district€attorneyððs€office€was€a€large€one,€with€over€40€attorneys.€€TheÏjudge,€when€employed€as€a€prosecutor,€performed€duties€in€the€district€attorneyððs€office€unrelated€toÏthis€case.€€Furthermore,€there€is€nothing€in€the€vague€allegations€about€the€conduct€of€anotherÏprosecutor€that€so€much€as€indicates€that€the€conduct€transpired€during€the€judgeððs€tenure€in€theÏdistrict€attorneyððs€office€or€that€the€allegedly€culpable€individual€was€employed€during€the€sameÏtime€period€that€the€post„conviction€judge€served€as€a€prosecutor.€€It€appears€from€documents€filedÏin€support€of€the€post„conviction€petition€that€the€prosecutorial€misconduct€allegation€pertains€toÏdiscovery€violations€and€allowing€false€testimony€at€the€sentencing€hearing,€both€of€which€wouldÏnecessarily€have€occurred€after€the€return€of€the€indictment.€€The€judge€found€that€she€had€departedÏfrom€the€district€attorneyððs€office€over€one€year€prior€to€the€indictmentððs€return.€€On€these€facts,€weÏsee€no€abuse€of€discretion€in€the€lower€courtððs€denial€of€the€motion€to€recuse€based€upon€formerÏemployment€as€a€prosecutor.€€òòAccord€Owens€v.€Stateóó,€13€S.W.3d€742,€757„58€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€531€U.S.€846,€121€S.€Ct.€116€(2000).ÌÌà àà àThe€second€basis€upon€which€the€petitioner€sought€recusal€of€the€trial€judge€was€herÏin„chambers€conference€with€Professor€Neil€Cohen,€a€prospective€expert€witness€for€the€petitioner.€ÏThe€petitioner€does€not€allege€that€the€merits€of€the€case€were€discussed,€but€he€claims€that€anÏappearance€of€impropriety€exists.€€The€judge€found€that€her€communications€with€Professor€CohenÏwere€related€to€an€earlier,€unrelated€conversation€about€jury€selection€in€capital€cases.€€We€seeÏnothing€actually€improper€about€this€communication.€€With€respect€to€the€appearance€ofÏimpropriety,€Professor€Cohen€is,€at€this€point,€only€a€prospective€witness.€€He€is€the€petitionerððsÏwitness,€and€if€the€judge€has€misrepresented€the€nature€of€their€communication,€it€is€within€theÏpetitionerððs€power€to€bring€that€evidence€to€light.€€He€has€not€done€so.€€Nothing€in€the€disciplinaryÏrules€for€judges€or€lawyers€prohibits€judges,€lawyers€and€professors€of€law€from€communicatingÏwith€one€another€about€unrelated€matters€when€they€are€involved€in€varying€capacities€in€ongoingÏlitigation,€and€no€improper€appearance€is€generated€in€the€usual€circumstances.€€The€lower€court€didÏnot€abuse€its€discretion€in€denying€the€motion€to€recuse€on€this€basis.€€òòSee€State€v.€Jonesóó,€735ÏS.W.2d€803,€810€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987)€(no€basis€for€recusal€when€trial€court€held€òòex€parteóóÏconference€with€prosecutor€mid„trial€about€unrelated€matter€and€defendant€failed€to€show€prejudice).ÌÌà àà àNext,€the€petitioner€takes€issue€with€the€lower€courtððs€review€of€the€circuit€court€fileÏin€the€civil€case.€€He€claims€this€was€an€improper€independent€investigation€by€the€court.€€The€law€isÏclear€that€the€court€must€generally€restrain€itself€to€consideration€of€those€facts€that€are€before€it€andÏmay€not€conduct€an€independent€investigation.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Sup.€Ct.€10,€Code€of€Judicial€Conduct,ÏCanon€3E(7)(e)€(Commentary)€(ð ðA€judge€must€not€independently€investigate€facts€in€a€case€andÏmust€consider€only€the€evidence€presented.ðð);€òòState€v.€Hartóó,€911€S.W.2d€371,€376€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1995).€€We€believe,€however,€the€court€was€empowered€to€judicially€notice€the€civil€file.ÌÌà àà àA€court€may€take€judicial€notice€of€facts€ð ðnot€subject€to€reasonable€disputeðð€that€areÏð ðcapable€of€accurate€and€ready€determination€by€resort€to€sources€whose€accuracy€cannotÏreasonably€be€questioned.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€201(a).€€ð ðCourt€records€fall€within€the€general€rubric€ofÏfacts€readily€and€accurately€determined.ðð€€òòState€v.€Nunleyóó,€22€S.W.3d€282,€288€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó(Tenn.€2000).€€òòBut€cf.€State€v.€Cashóó,€867€S.W.2d€741,€748„49€Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.€1993)€(trial€judge€should€have€recused€himself€after€òòex€parteóó€communication€withÏprosecutor€and€review€of€appellate€court€record€relative€to€prior€appeal€of€case,€those€actionsÏculminating€in€the€court€òòsua€sponte€óóentering€an€order€attempting€to€reinstate€a€conviction€previouslyÏvacated€by€the€appellate€court).ÌÌà àà àWhen€a€court€intends€to€rely€upon€judicial€notice€principles€to€bring€facts€€otherwiseÏoutside€the€record€into€play€in€a€proceeding,€Rule€201€provides€a€mechanism€for€hearing€uponÏrequest€ð ðas€to€the€propriety€of€taking€judicial€notice€and€the€tenor€of€the€matter€noticed.ðð€€Tenn.€R.ÏEvid.€201(e).€€Implicitly,€the€aggrieved€party€must€register€a€timely€objection€under€subsection€(e);Ïotherwise,€the€noticed€facts€are€taken€as€given€in€the€trial€and€appellate€proceedings.× ƒ’ ××  ×€€òòNunleyóó,€22ÏS.W.3d€at€28;€òòseeóó€Neil€P.€Cohen,€Sarah€Y.€Sheppeard€&€Donald€F.€Payne,€Tennessee€Law€ofÏEvidence€ðð€2.01[6][b]€(4òòthóó€ed.€2000)ò ò€ó ó("Failure€to€request€a€hearing€can€bar€later€appellate€review€ofÏjudicial€notice.").ÌÌà àà àIn€this€case,€the€record€reflects€that€the€lower€court€referred€to€records€of€the€civilÏproceedings€on€two€occasions.€€First,€at€the€October€11,€2000€hearing€which€resulted€in€theÏappointment€of€the€attorney€òòad€litemóó€and€the€mental€examination€order,€the€judge€returned€from€aÏrecess€and€announced€that€she€had€obtained€the€court€file€from€the€civil€case.€€She€said,€ð ðI€hopeÏnobody€objects.ðð€€Both€parties€were€silent.€€Counsel€for€the€petitioner€expressed€opposition€toÏappointment€of€the€attorney€òòad€litemóó€and€the€competency€inquiry,€but€none€of€the€petitionerððsÏattorneys,€at€least€three€of€whom€were€present,€voiced€any€objection€to€the€courtððs€reference€to€theÏcivil€case€file.€€Thereafter,€in€the€December€4,€2000€order€denying€the€motion€to€reconsider€rulingsÏthat€resulted€from€the€October€11,€2000€hearing,€the€court€recited€facts€gleaned€from€the€civil€file.€ÏInterestingly,€however,€it€was€not€until€January€10,€2001€that€the€petitioner€registered€any€objectionÏto€the€courtððs€reference€to€the€civil€file,€just€one€day€shy€of€three€months€after€the€court€firstÏreferred,€without€objection,€to€the€civil€pleadings€and€filings.ÌÌà àà àThe€court€records€of€the€civil€case€were€facts€capable€of€ready€and€accurateÏdetermination.€€òòNunleyóó,€22€S.W.3d€at€288;€òòseeóóTenn.€R.€Evid.€201(a).€€The€court€expressed€its€intentÏto€rely€on€those€facts€in€October,€and€counsel€stood€mute€as€the€court€proceeded€to€do€so.€€TheÏcourt€did€so€a€second€time€in€December,€and€again€counsel€was€silent.€€No€objection€was€registeredÏuntil€nearly€three€months€after€the€courtððs€first€reliance€on€judicially€noticed€facts€and€one€monthÏafter€the€second€occurrence.€€Even€then,€counsel€did€not€make€a€request€under€Rule€201€for€aÏhearing€on€the€propriety€of€judicial€notice.€€We€hold€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel€waived€anyÏcomplaint€they€might€have€under€Rule€201€to€the€courtððs€reference€to€the€civil€file€by€failing€toÏpromptly€request€a€hearing€on€the€propriety€of€judicial€notice.ÌÌà àà àBecause€the€court€properly€exercised€its€powers€of€judicial€notice,€the€references€toÏthe€civil€file€did€not€constitute€an€improper,€òòex€parteóó€investigation,€and€provided€no€basis€for€recusal.ÌÌà àà àFinally,€we€consider€the€petitionerððs€argument€that€recusal€is€appropriate€because€ofÏthe€lower€courtððs€ð ðegregious€rulings€and€refusal€to€adhere€to€Supreme€Court€Rule€28."€€First€of€all,Ïthis€issue€was€not€raised€as€a€basis€for€recusal€below,€and€it€was€not€a€basis€upon€which€we€grantedÏRule€10€review.€€It€is€therefore€not€properly€before€us.Ìà àà àÌà àà àHowever,€we€feel€compelled€to€comment€on€the€lower€courtððs€handling€of€theseÏproceedings.€€As€discussed€above,€we€find€nothing€egregious€about€the€lower€courtððs€rulings.€ÏMoreover,€we€do€not€believe€the€lower€court€has€run€afoul€of€Rule€28's€scheduling€guidelines€forÏprompt€disposition€of€post„conviction€actions.€€First,€it€must€be€noted€that€the€evidentiary€hearing€inÏthis€case€was€scheduled€within€the€guidelines€of€Rule€28.€€The€lower€court€postponed€that€hearingÏupon€discerning€the€necessity€of€inquiry€into€the€petitionerððs€mental€competency€and€conflictingÏinterests€of€counsel.€€The€petitionerððs€counsel€then€pursued€several€lengthy€motions€in€the€lowerÏcourt€and€the€Rule€10€application€to€this€court.€€The€petitionerððs€counselððs€objections€to€theÏcompetency€and€conflicts€inquiry€have€contributed€to€the€delay.€€While€counsel€certainly€has€theÏright€to€oppose€that€inquiry,€we€will€not€lay€the€cause€for€the€delay€at€the€feet€of€the€trial€court,€whichÏacted€appropriately€in€the€situation€presented.€€In€fact,€we€are€compelled€to€commend€the€lowerÏcourt.€€Due€to€the€many€unique€motions€filed€by€the€petitionerððs€counsel€and€the€unusualÏcircumstances€presented,€the€lower€court€has€done€an€exemplary€job€of€managing€the€case€andÏproceedings€under€challenging€circumstances.ÌÌà àà àIn€conclusion,€we€hold€that€we€improvidently€granted€review€of€the€first€issue.€€OnÏthe€other€two€issues,€we€affirm€the€rulings€of€the€lower€court.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE