ÿWPC‰ ‡bÅá`¡jˆ›*½C¼Ïrr³:x”0[–¿+²¹¢œ l»þÕO@ç9ì jÎL­ÿ³¤%ÿ‹ ×Ð˼Q$n%K¹›ðÂú®õϳü‡:é;Ûb#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ ³™ ÆL ÆÆØÆž 0DdN¨UNªªEø„úúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúb~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0놆†† Bqq 0¤Ž D32 D-e 0K’’ ASÝÆ0 0¤ö 0Dš A«Þ˜\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»}¢N1Þ (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularóbï.ê: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‹ÿÀÀÀ ©Ý ƒR½=$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôçýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€motion€is€not€included€in€the€record.€Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular Kestnerresettings t]he W]eNicholsreschedulings- ù-(|G2½=$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôçýò»»Ô d(|3Çt$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Çt$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€P»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼P»»»ÔÑ8€!XXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îK¬î»¼PÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼P»îîK¬ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€August€18,€2004Ð üL ÐÔ‡X!X»¼PÔÌò òÔ#†¼P»XX! #ÔCHARLES€RITTERòòóó€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡X!X»¼PÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€46373€€€€€€Ray€L.€Jenkins,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2003„03016„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€October€14,€Ô_Ô2004Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€petitioner,€Charles€Ritter,€appeals€the€post„conviction€courtððs€summary€dismissal€of€his€petitionÐ xÈ  Ðfor€post„conviction€relief,€arguing€that€the€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€argue€its€motion€toÐ d´ Ðdismiss€on€the€date€scheduled€for€the€evidentiary€hearing,€in€dismissing€the€petition€without€a€fullÐ P  Ðevidentiary€hearing,€and€in€failing€to€issue€either€oral€or€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€ofÐ <Œ Ðlaw€in€support€of€its€dismissal€of€the€petition.€€Following€our€review,€we€conclude€that€the€post„Ð (x Ðconviction€court€erred€in€summarily€dismissing€the€petition€based,€apparently,€on€the€lengthy€passageÐ d Ðof€time€between€the€filing€of€the€original€post„conviction€petition€in€1992€and€the€dismissal€of€theÐ P Ðpetition€in€2003,€and€in€failing€to€make€appropriate€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€Ð ì< ÐAccordingly,€we€reverse€the€dismissal€of€the€petition€and€remand€to€the€post„conviction€court€for€anÐ Ø( Ðappropriate€evidentiary€hearing.€€€Ô#†¼P»XX!#ÔÔ‡X!X»¼PÔÐ Ä ÐÓ«ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed€andÐ œì ÐRemandedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼P»àX!? #ÔÔ‡X!X.¼PÔAlan€E.€Glenn,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€G.€Hayesóó€and€òòJamesÐ `° ÐÔ_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌBrandt€Davis,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Charles€Ritter.Ð $"t! ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Seth€P.€Kestner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ü#L# ÐRandall€E.€Nichols,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Philip€H.€Morton,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ è$8 $ ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô#†¼P»XX!A #ÔÔ‡X!X»¼PԀРÔ%$!% ÐÓ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼P»XX!ä #ÔÔ‡X!X»¼PÔÐ ¬'ü"' ÐòòóóÔ#†¼P»XX!l #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X!X»¼PÔÌà@¥¥(ìàò òòòFACTSóóó óˆÐ „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àIn€1989,€the€petitioner,€Charles€Ritter,€was€convicted€by€a€Knox€County€Criminal€Court€juryÐ \+¬&+ Ðof€aggravated€rape€and€aggravated€sexual€battery,€for€which€he€received€an€effective€sentence€of€fortyÐ H,˜', Ðyears€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€His€convictions€were€subsequently€affirmed€by€this€court,€and€hisÐ 4-„(-ýú ÐÔ_Ôapplication€for€permission€to€appeal€to€the€supreme€court€was€denied.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Charles€Ritteróó,Ð ° ÐNo.€1279,€1990€WL€12448,€at€*1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Feb.€16,€1990),€òòperm.€to€appeal€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð œì ÐMay€14,€1990).€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àOur€review€of€the€post„conviction€proceedings€in€this€case€is€hampered€by€the€sparse€recordÐ `° Ðon€appeal,€which€consists€of€a€brief€transcript€from€a€November€20,€2003,€hearing,€and€a€fewÐ L œ Ðpleadings€and€court€minutes€contained€in€the€technical€record.€€From€what€we€have€been€able€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðglean€from€this€sparse€source,€the€petitioner€apparently€filed€his€original€petition€for€post„convictionÐ $ t Ðrelief€on€January€27,€1992,€alleging,€among€other€things,€òòóóprosecutorial€misconduct,€error€on€the€partÐ  ` Ðof€the€trial€court€in€its€determination€that€the€child€victim€was€a€competent€witness,€and€ineffectiveÐ ü L  Ðassistance€of€counsel.€€On€November€22,€1999,€the€post„conviction€court€allowed€original€post„Ð è 8  Ðconviction€counsel€to€withdraw€and€the€petitioner€to€substitute€a€second€post„conviction€counsel.€Ð Ô$  ÐAccording€to€the€court€minutes€contained€in€the€technical€record,€on€October€30,€2003,€the€post„Ð À  Ðconviction€court€allowed€the€petitioner€to€substitute€yet€a€third€post„conviction€counsel.€€On€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðsame€day,€the€court€also€apparently€denied€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€prosecute,׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€andÐ ˜è  Ðreset€the€case€for€a€November€13,€2003,€evidentiary€hearing.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àOn€November€12,€2003,€the€petitioner€filed€an€amended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,Ð \¬ Ðincorporating€his€original€petition€and€setting€forth€more€specific€grounds€in€support€of€hisÐ H˜ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€claim.€€The€technical€record€also€contains€the€Stateððs€ð ðMotion€toÐ 4„ ÐDismiss,ðð€stamped€by€the€court€clerk€as€filed€on€November€12,€2003,€alleging€that€the€case€had€beenÐ  p Ðset€and€reset€sixty„seven€times,€that€the€resettings€had€ð ðbeen€occasioned€by€the€Petitioner€and€not€theÐ  \ ÐState,ðð€and€that€the€petitioner€had€changed€attorneys€twice,€with€the€most€recent€substitution€inÐ øH ÐOctober€2003,€in€an€effort€to€avoid€the€hearing€scheduled€on€that€date.€€Citing€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€831Ð ä4 ÐS.W.2d€281€(Tenn.€1992),€the€State€asserted€that€the€petitionerððs€actions€in€delaying€the€evidentiaryÐ Ð  Ðhearing€constituted€bad€faith€and€an€abuse€of€the€post„conviction€process€and€requested€that€the€post„Ð ¼  Ðconviction€court€therefore€dismiss€the€case€with€prejudice.€òòóóÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€next€action€reflected€in€the€record€is€a€short€hearing€held€on€November€20,€2003,€atÐ €Ð Ðwhich€the€State€and€post„conviction€counsel€briefly€argued€the€Stateððs€motion€to€dismiss,€neither€sideÐ l¼ Ðpresenting€any€proof.€€At€its€conclusion,€the€post„conviction€court€granted€the€motion€and€dismissedÐ X ¨ Ðthe€petition€with€prejudice.€€However,€it€made€neither€oral€nor€written€findings€of€fact€or€conclusionsÐ D!” Ðof€law€to€explain€its€decision€to€grant€the€Stateððs€motion.€€Subsequently,€the€court€denied€the€Ð 0"€  Ðpetitionerððs€motion€to€rehear,€and€this€appeal€followed.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òòòANALYSISóóó óˆÐ ô$D # Ðà  àÌà  àThe€petitioner€raises€the€following€three€issues€on€appeal:€€(1)€whether€the€post„convictionÐ Ì&"% Ðcourt€erred€in€allowing€the€State€to€ð ðorally€continue€argument€on€its€oral€motion€to€dismiss,€whichÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âhad€been€denied€by€the€court€on€October€30,€2003ðð;€(2)€whether€the€post„conviction€court€erred€inÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdismissing€the€petition€with€prejudice€without€a€full€evidentiary€hearing;€and€(3)€whether€the€post„Ð ° Ðconviction€court€erred€in€failing€to€issue€written€or€oral€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law.€€Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àThe€petitioner€first€contends€that€the€post„conviction€court€erred€in€allowing€the€State€toÐ tÄ Ðrenew€its€argument€for€the€dismissal€of€the€petition€at€the€November€20,€2003,€date€scheduled€forÐ `° Ðthe€evidentiary€hearing,€without€first€filing€a€motion€to€have€the€court€reconsider€its€earlier€oralÐ L œ Ðdenial€of€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€He€asserts€that€ð ð[t]he€State€filed€no€motions€or€other€pleadingsÐ 8 ˆ Ðrequesting€the€court€to€reconsider€the€denial€of€this€motion€to€dismiss,€which€was€verbally€enteredÐ $ t Ðby€the€trial€court€on€October€30,€2003.ðð€€However,€as€the€State€points€out€and€we€have€previouslyÐ  ` Ðnoted,€the€record€reflects€that€the€State€filed€a€written€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€same€date€theÐ ü L  Ðpetitioner€filed€his€amended€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€with€a€certificate€of€service€indicatingÐ è 8  Ðthat€a€copy€had€been€delivered€to€post„conviction€counselððs€office€ð ðby€mailing€or€hand„delivery,€onÐ Ô$  Ðthis€the€12òòthóó€day€of€November,€2003.ðð€€Thus,€regardless€of€how€the€State€styled€the€document,€theÐ À  Ðrecord€indicates€that€the€petitioner€was€given€notice€of€the€Stateððs€renewal€of€its€motion€to€dismiss.€Ð ¬ü  ÐWe€cannot,€therefore,€conclude€that€the€post„conviction€courtððs€consideration€of€the€motion€at€theÐ ˜è  ÐNovember€20,€2003,€hearing€was,€in€itself,€error.€€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àWe€agree,€however,€that€it€was€error€for€the€court€to€dismiss€the€petition€without€anÐ \¬ Ðevidentiary€hearing€and€without€making€any€findings€of€fact€or€conclusions€of€law.€€In€theòòóó€òòWilliamsÐ H˜ Ðóócase€cited€by€the€State,€our€supreme€court,€addressing€the€effect€of€a€petitionerððs€voluntaryÐ 4„ Ðwithdrawal€of€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€concluded€that€the€post„conviction€courtððsÐ  p Ðresulting€dismissal€of€the€petition€with€prejudice€for€failure€to€prosecute€would€be€proper€when€theÐ  \ Ðcourt€ð ðdiscerns€that€a€litigant€is€abusing€the€post„conviction€process€by€filing€successive€petitionsÐ øH Ðand€seeking€repeated€withdrawals,€or€is€otherwise€acting€in€bad€faith,ðð€but€would€constitute€an€abuseÐ ä4 Ðof€discretion€when€ð ðit€appears€that€the€petitioner€is€not€acting€in€bad€faith€but€has€some€reasonableÐ Ð  Ðbasis€for€seeking€voluntary€withdrawal.ðð€òòóó€831€S.W.2d€at€283.€€€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€transcript€of€the€November€20€hearing,€which€consists€of€only€a€few€pages,€reflects€theÐ ”ä Ðfollowing:€Ð €Ð ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[ASSISTANT€DISTRICT€ATTORNEY]:€€[W]e€suggest€thatÐ X ¨ Ðthis€record€reflects€bad€faith€in€that€this€matter€has€been€set€67€timesÐ D!” Ðand€reset€at€the€instance€of€the€Petitioner€almost€each€and€every€time,Ð 0"€  Ðand€that€he€has€„€„€and€as€I€would€note€as€well,€heððs€changed€lawyersÐ #l! Ðnow€two€or€three€times€in€an€attempt€to€avoid€a€hearing€on€thisÐ $X" Ðmatter.Ðô$D #` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àWe€ask€that€it€be€dismissed.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:€€Yes,€sir.Ф(ô#'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[POST„CONVICTION€COUNSEL]:€€Your€Honor,€I€donððtÐ |*Ì%) Ðthink€thereððs€been€any€attempt€by€[the€petitioner]€to€avoid€a€hearing.€Ðh+¸&*` x` x Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àIððve€read€the€òòWilliamsóó€case.€€The€òòWilliamsóó€case€.€.€.€deals€withÐ ° Ða€petitioner€withdrawing€a€petition.€€It€doesnððt€address€the€issue€ofÐ œì Ðcontinuances.€€It€does€make€reference€to€bad€faith.€€And€if€thereððs€anyÐ ˆØ Ðbad€faith,€and€all€the€continuances€have€been€granted€in€this€case,€IððdÐ tÄ Ðsay€itððs€not€with€the€Petitioner.€€I€think€itððs€something€we€need€toÐ `° Ðaddress€and€maybe€hear€from€counsel€who€represented€himÐ L œ Ðthroughout€the€years.€Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.€Ð `` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnd€I€believe€if€the€General€is€going€to€insist€on€having€thisÐ è 8  Ðmotion€heard,€I€need€to€put€something€on€the€record€through€the€twoÐ Ô$  Ðattorneys€that€handled€this€case.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àAnd€I€would€note€that€in€looking€at€the€record,€thereððs€neverÐ ˜è  Ðbeen€an€objection€by€the€State€in€any€of€these€resettings.€€And€forÐ „Ô  Ðwhatever€reason,€you€know€„€„€it€hasnððt€[sic]€passed€through€five€orÐ pÀ Ðsix€assistant€prosecutors€„€„€it€was€always€reset.€€Ð\¬` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à.€.€.€.€Ð4„` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:€€At€best,€any€testimony€would€be€stale.Ð \` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[POST„CONVICTION€COUNSEL]:€€So,€Judge,€I€suppose€IÐ ä4 Ðwould€like€to€delay€this€in€order€to€get€both€[previous€post„convictionÐ Ð  Ðcounsel]€in€court.м ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[ASSISTANT€DISTRICT€ATTORNEY]:€€Your€Honor,€weÐ ”ä Ðdelayed€it€twice€already,€and€I€thought€we€were€going€to€be€heard€onÐ €Ð Ðit€today€and€let€the€Court€decide€it.€€I€mean,€thatððs€why€itððs€set€today.€Ð l¼ Ðà ¸ àà  àÐ ` x` x Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[POST„CONVICTION€COUNSEL]:€€I€did,€too,€Judge.€€[FirstÐ D!” ÐPost„conviction€counsel]€is€under€subpoena,€and€[second€post„Ð 0"€  Ðconviction€counsel]€isnððt,€although€he€still€hasnððt€been€relieved€asÐ #l! Ðcounsel.€€But€I€talked€to€him€last€night,€and€he€is€with€his€ð!ð€I€think€heÐ $X" Ðhas€triplets€at€the€doctorððs€office€this€morning.€€He€said€he€would€beÐ ô$D # Ðhere€ð!ð€or€could€be€here€maybe€10:30€or€11.€€But€[first€post„convictionÐ à%0!$ Ðcounsel]€is€still€out€in€Clinton.€ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à[ASSISTANT€DISTRICT€ATTORNEY]:€€Judge,€let€me€makeÐ ¤(ô#' Ðone€other€observation€on€the€bad„faith€issue.Ð)à$(` x` x Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àThis€petition€was€filed€I€think€in€1991.€€And€now€that€[post„Ð ° Ðâ âconviction€counsel],€his€third€lawyer,€has€gotten€involved€in€it,€heÐ œì Ðnow€seeks€to€amend€that€petition€for€the€first€time€in€12€years.€ÐˆØ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àSo€this€Petitioner€is€shopping€around€until€he€can€find€aÐ `° Ðlawyer€that€ð!ð€thatððll€say€what€he€wants€to€say,€apparently.€€Thatððs€justÐ L œ Ðwhat€the€record€reflects.€€And€that,€combined€with€the€67€times€itððsÐ 8 ˆ Ðbeen€set,€we€say€is€bad€faith.Ð$ t` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àTHE€COURT:€All€right.€€Iððll€grant€the€Stateððs€motion€toÐ ü L  Ðdismiss€with€prejudice.€€à À àà  àà p àÐè 8 ` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€post„conviction€courtððs€finding€of€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€petitioner€can€be€inferredÐ À  Ðfrom€the€exchange€above€and€by€its€dismissal€of€the€petition€with€prejudice.€Ô‡X!XXX!Ô€Although€presumablyÐ ¬ü  Ðdocumentary€evidence€was€available€and€was€the€basis€for€the€Stateððs€claim€that€the€matter€had€beenÐ ˜è  Ðreset€sixty„seven€times,€ð ðalmost€each€and€every€timeðð€at€the€request€of€the€petitioner,€the€record€onÐ „Ô  Ðappeal€contains€no€proof€of€this€assertion.€€In€fact,€as€to€the€history€of€this€matter,€the€record€showsÐ pÀ Ðonly€that€approximately€eleven€years€had€passed€between€the€filing€of€the€original€petition€for€post„Ð \¬ Ðconviction€relief€and€the€Stateððs€seeking€its€dismissal.€€While€the€State€made€the€same€claims,Ð H˜ Ðpresumably€recounted€from€court€records,€in€the€motion€to€dismiss€and€during€oral€argument€as€toÐ 4„ Ðthe€number€of€times€the€matter€had€been€reset€and€the€party€seeking€the€continuances,€none€of€thoseÐ  p Ðrecords€were€supplied€to€this€court.€€The€Stateððs€claims€before€the€post„conviction€court€areÐ  \ Ðinsufficient€to€establish€facts;€for,€as€this€court€explained€in€òòState€v.€Robertsóó,€755€S.W.2d€833,€836Ð øH Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988),€ð ðthe€arguments€of€counsel€and€the€recitation€of€facts€contained€in€a€brief,Ð ä4 Ðor€a€similar€pleading,€are€not€evidence.ðð€€Thus,€we€have€no€proof€before€us€as€to€how€many€timesÐ Ð  Ðthe€matter€had€been€reset€or€which€party€had€sought€the€reschedulings.€€Further,€Tennessee€CodeÐ ¼  ÐAnnotated€section€40-30-106(f)€(2003)€requires€that,€when€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€isÐ ¨ø Ðdismissed€without€a€hearing,€ð ð[t]he€order€of€dismissal€shall€set€forth€the€court's€conclusions€of€law.ðð€Ð ”ä ÐHere,€the€record€is€silent€as€to€the€reason€for€the€dismissal.€€Accordingly,€we€concur€with€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendant€that€the€order€of€dismissal€must€be€reversed€and€the€matter€remanded.Ð l¼ ÐÔ#†X!XXX!³?#ԀРX ¨ Ðà@FF%ìàò òòòCONCLUSIONˆÐ D!” ÐÌà  àóóó óWe€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€post„conviction€court€and€remand€for€an€evidentiary€hearingÐ #l! Ðto€determine€the€reason€for€the€delay€in€the€prosecution€of€the€case.€€Should€the€post„conviction€courtÐ $X" Ðfind€based€on€the€proof€that€the€delay€was€caused€by€the€petitionerððs€bad€faith,€it€may€appropriatelyÐ ô$D # Ðdismiss€the€petition€for€failure€to€prosecute.€€However,€should€it€find€that€the€petitioner€was€eitherÐ à%0!$ Ðnot€responsible€for€the€delay€or€had€a€reasonable€reason€for€seeking€the€continuances,€the€petitionerÐ Ì&"% Ðshould€be€granted€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€the€merits€of€his€petition.€à  àà x àà Ð àÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€GLENN,€JUDGE