WPC9 2Ac"RM&֭I͘YQ@ Iۙv-g\/?z m|9[RgRXb!䱁WpVKx-alŌݮn3vKܡcU|r@"ʂTn%}~Kɽ[kӵ_طL@Xtr 5:T+xh<1ޙQ|'9t!Hl'1+MϠ̈=t2CNH'paQv|)Y8%"50]U{9O-asp)&_T{"\s५$^zŷ_WQR$504X Mris|2 'l)_#2U)N %I 0:O UN ^ w 4   m N# % U> 0U 0> 0! 0 0 0^ 0 0 0e 0 0 0 0O 0 0 0D 0 0t 0 0 0 0A 0 0 0- 0 0W 0 0 0Q! 0>" 0M" 0E# 0'$ 0 % 0% 0& 0' 0i( 02;) 0m) 0:i* 0Y* 0_* 0 [+ 0e, 0- B*/ D/0 D+F0 0q0 D/w2 02 06t3 03 0:4 0^4 0<J5 1e5U65U*!6 1uK6 726 0c66 U7 o7 v7 0~7Ey8 0D{8 B88888b888:8HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regularטj1 h_B0CCA103|xU    ' ib011r90ib011r9 .   \  `&Times New Roman*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7?(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?K%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d>)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7B(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?K%2A`Arial?  S\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X75+ ` hp x 5  >)2dxd0KS.SampleKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Li)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  SearchTermStarPageciteas((Cite as: 2002 WL 31512351, *10 (Tenn.Crim.App.))(.(3($ !USUS.,      0  (#$  0   d- - 0#Xd# [ !USUS.,  _X/XXXiXX/^@hh#X/Xi\#kXX/INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#X/Xk#iXX/Ԉ #    @  @` AssignedonBriefsAugust10,2004 F #X/Xid#iXX/ #X/Xi#iXX/JONATHAND.TEARSv.STATEOFTENNESSEE#X/Xi]##X9$XXX/=# y XX9$  f #X9$X y #0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMarshallCounty 7  @@No.15525CharlesLee,Judge ! q @@*AVT) ` dE<` A /  @@TTNo.M200302291CCAR3PCFiledNovember10,_2004_ (  AVT) ` dE<` A       X/XXX9$AMarshallCountyjuryconvictedthePetitioner,JonathanD.Tears,ofmultipledrugrelated  offenses,andthetrialcourtsentencedhimtotwelveyears.ThePetitionerdidnotappealhis v convictionsorsentence,butfiledaprosepetitionforpostconvictionreliefonthegroundsthathe _ wasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Followingahearingonthepostconvictionpetition,the H postconvictioncourtdismissedthepetition.Onappeal,thePetitionercontendsthathewasdenied 1 effectiveassistanceofcounselbecause:(1)bothhistrialandappellatecounselfailedtoproperly j advisehimaboutthelawregardinghisrighttofileamotionfornewtrial;(2)trialandappellate S counselfailedtoinformthePetitionerofhisrighttoappointedcounselforappeal;and(3)trialand < appellatecounselfailedtofullyadvisehimofhisrighttoappealthesentenceimposedbythetrial % court.Afterthoroughlyreviewingtherecordandtheapplicablelaw,weconcludethatthereexists  reversibleerrorinthetrialcourtsjudgment.  #X9$XXX/#X/XXX9$ Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtReversed  y   RobertW._Wedemeyer_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Welles,J.,and L  NormaMcGeeOgle,J.,joined. 5!  AndrewJackson_Dearing_,III,_Shelbyville_,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JonathanD.Tears. #W" PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;JenniferL._Bledsoe_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; $) $ WilliamMichael_McCown_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;and_Weakley_ԀE.Bernard,AssistantDistrict %!% AttorneyGeneral,#X9$XXX/A#X/XXX9$fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. &!& @@OO& OPINION  f)$)   #X9$XXX/#X/XXX9$@& I.Facts ",r',   In2002,aMarshallCountyjuryconvictedthePetitioner,JonathanD.Tearsofmultipledrug -F). ^ ^89$XXdd8[ ^  _relatedcharges,includingpossessionofcocaine,incasenumber15525.In2003,thePetitionerfiled  aprosepetitionforpostconvictionreliefinwhichheassertedthathewasdeniedeffective  assistanceofcounsel. #X9$XXX/ #X9$XXX9$Specifically,thePetitionerassertedthathewasdeniedeffectiveassistance  ofcounselbecause:(1)histrialandappellatecounselfailedtofileamotionforanewtrial;(2) k counselfailedtoinformthePetitionerofhisrighttoappointedcounselforanappeal;and(3) T counselfailedtoappealthePetitionersconviction.#X9$XXX9$^##X9$XXX9$Ԁ =    Thefollowingevidencewaspresentedatthepostconvictionhearing.#X9$XXX9$(%#X9$XXX9$ԀThePetitioner  _ testifiedthatafterhisconvictionandpriortohissentencinghearing,histrialcounsel,Don  H Himmelberg( Counsel)discussedwithhimtheprocedurestofollowforanappeal,includingthe  1  costoftheappeal.ThePetitionersaidthatCounseltoldhimthatanappealwouldcostatleast    $2500.ThePetitionerstatedthat,afterthesentencinghearing,Counselneverdiscussedhisright   toappealthesentenceimposeduponhimorhisrighttofileamotionforanewtrialand#X9$XXX9$%#X9$XXX9$ԀthatCounsel   didnottellhimofhisrighttoanappointedattorney,ifhewasunabletoaffordanattorney,forhis   directappeal.ThePetitionerfurthertestifiedthatheneverinformedCounselthathedidnotwish n  topursueanappealandthathedidnotwaivehisrighttoappeal. W    Oncrossexamination,thePetitioneradmittedthatCounsel,andpossiblyhisappellate )y counsel,LanceMayes( AppellateCounsel),filedamotiontowithdrawbecausethePetitionerhad b notkeptincontactwiththem.ThePetitionerstatedthatCounselfailedtocontacthim.The K PetitionerstatedthatAppellateCounselaskedhimifwouldliketoappealhisconvictionand_the 4 Petitionerrespondedthathewantedtoappealhiscase.HesaidthatCounselexplainedthefeefor  theappealbutthatneitherofhisattorneys gotthatdeepintoadiscussionabouttheappeal.The  Petitionerstatedthathisattorneysdidnotfullyinformhimofhisrighttohaveacourtappointed  attorneyrepresenthimduringhisappeal.Further,hesaidthathispostconvictionpetition,which  requestedthathisappealbereinstated,_took_Ԁafullyeartocompletebecausehewasunfamiliarwith q thelaw.ThePetitionerexplainedthatthepersonassistinghimwastransferredtoanewfacility,and Z thePetitionerdidnothaveaccesstothecorrectionalfacilitylawlibraryforanextendedperiodof C time.ThePetitioneradmittedthatheknewhehadtherighttoappeal,butdidnotknowtheextent ,| ofthatright. e   CounseltestifiedthatduringhisrepresentationofthePetitioner,hespokewiththePetitioner  7 severaltimes.CounselstatedthathehadsetupapproximatelythreemeetingswiththePetitioner !   atCounselsoffice,butthePetitionernevercametoanyofthem,soCounselfiledamotionto " ! withdraw.Counseltestifiedthathewasunsurewhetherthemotiontowithdrawwasdeniedorifhe #" withdrewthemotionbutthecaseproceededtotrial.Counselsaidthat,duringtrial,heandAppellate $# CounselhadseveralconversationswiththePetitionerabouttheprocessoffilingamotionfornew t% $ trialandanappeal.HesaidthatheandAppellateCounseltoldthePetitionerthatAppellateCounsel ]&!% wouldhandletheappeal,andthattherewasafeefortheappellatework. F'"&     CounseltestifiedthatheandAppellateCounseltoldthePetitionerthat,ifthePetitioner )h$( chosenottoappeal,hestillhadtherighttofileamotionfornewtrial,andhesaidthathetoldthe *Q%) Petitionerofthethirtydaytimeframetofileamotionfornewtrial.Counseltestifiedthathe *:&* explainedthisagaintothePetitioneratthesentencinghearing,whileAppellateCounselwasnot +#'+ _present.CounselstatedthatthePetitionerdidnotdirectlyrespond,butthatthePetitionertold  CounselthathewouldcontactCounselabouthisdecisiontoappeal.CounselsaidthatthePetitioner  andCounselnevercommunicatedafterthesentencinghearing.Further,hesaidthatthePetitioners  originalfee,whichwaspaid,includedthefilingofamotionfornewtrial,buthedidnotfilethe k motionbecauseheleftthatdecisiontothePetitioner,andthePetitionerdidnotinstructCounselto T filethemotion. =    AppellateCounseltestifiedthathepracticeswithCounsel,andtheycollaborateoncriminal  _ trials.AppellateCounselstatedthathewasavailableforthescheduledmeetingsbetweenthe  H PetitionerandCounsel,butthePetitionerdidnotattend.AppellateCounseltestifiedthathedidnot  1  communicatewiththePetitionerpriortotrialandwasnotinvolvedintheactualtrialofthecase,but    heattendedthetrial.AppellateCounselstatedthathehadseveralconversationswiththePetitioner   duringthetrialandjurydeliberationandinformedhimoftheissuesavailableforappeal.Appellate   CounseltestifiedthatheinformedthePetitionerofthethirtydaysavailabletofileamotionfornew   trialandnoticeofappeal,andhetoldthePetitionerthathewouldhavetomakethefeearrangement n  withCounsel.AppellateCounselstatedthatitishisusualpracticetofileboththemotionfornew W  trialandnoticeofappealtogethertoinsurethatthenecessaryissuesareincluded.Hetestifiedthat @ hehadnofurthercontactwiththePetitionerafterthetrial. )y   Attheconclusionofthehearing,thepostconvictioncourtmadethefollowingfindingsof K factandconclusionsoflaw: 4 8  The[P]etitionerisnostrangertothecriminaljusticesystem.Hehasatleastone  priorfelonyconvictionandperhapsmore.Ononeprioroccasion,afterconviction  ofthechargeoffacilitationofrobbery,heelectednottoappealthatconviction.  Beforehistrialwhichisthesubjectmatterofthispostconvictionreliefpetition,the q [P]#X9$XXX9$n(#X9$XXX9$etitionertestifiedthatheknewhehadarightofappealbut ...didntknow[the] Z extentoftheright....C   8  Mr.Himmelbergtestifiedthatbeforethe[P]#X9$XXX9$?#X9$XXX9$etitionerstrial,the[P]#X9$XXX9$ A#X9$XXX9$etitionerfailed e toadequatelyconsultwithhimtopreparefortrial.The[P]#X9$XXX9$jA#X9$XXX9$etitionerfailedtokeep N appointmentsfortrialpreparationonatleastthreeoccasions.Thelackof  7 [P]#X9$XXX9$B#X9$XXX9$etitionerscooperationcausedMr.Himmelbergtotaketheextraordinary !   precautionoffilingamotiontowithdrawonthedayofthetrial....Mr.Himmelberg " ! withdrewhismotiontowithdrawbutonlyafterthe[P]#X9$XXX9$B#X9$XXX9$etitionerfiledawrittenwaiver #" onanyissuesassociatedwiththewithdrawal....$#   8  Attheevidentiaryhearinginthismatter,the[P]#X9$XXX9$$D#X9$XXX9$etitionerdeniedthathehadfailedto ]&!% adequatelycommunicatewithhisattorneytopreparefortrial.Insteadhetakesthe F'"& positionthatitwasnothewhofailedtokeepinadequatecommunication,buthis /(#' attorneyfailedtocontacthim....ThecourtaccreditsthetestimonyofMr. )h$( Himmelberg....*Q%)   8  Mr.HimmelbergassociatedMr.LanceMayestoassisthimwiththe[P]#X9$XXX9$,E#X9$XXX9$etitioners +#'+ trialandtoprepareforapossibleappeal.Mr.Mayeswaspresentduringthe  [P]#X9$XXX9$\G#X9$XXX9$etitionerstrial.Whilethejurydeliberated,Mr.Mayesexplainedtheappeals  processincludingtheimportanceandtimetableoffilingamotionfornewtrialtothe  [P]#X9$XXX9$&H#X9$XXX9$etitioner.k   8  ...Mr.Himmelbergtestifiedthatheexplainedtothedefendantthathewasprepared =  tofileamotionfornewtrialandthemotionfornewtrialwasnotcontingentonthe & v paymentofanyadditionalfee.Further,heexplainedthatifthemotionfornewtrial  _ wasdeniedandanappealtakenthenanewfeearrangementwouldbemade.When  H askedwhatthe[P]#X9$XXX9$BI#X9$XXX9$etitionersdesireswereregardingthemotionfornewtrial,Mr.  1  Himmelbergtestifiedthatthe[P]#X9$XXX9$oK#X9$XXX9$etitionerstatedthathewouldcallMr.Himmelberg    to lethimknow.The[P]#X9$XXX9$*L#X9$XXX9$etitionerneveradvisedMr.Himmelbergastohisdesires.    8  ...Thecasepresentlybeforethecourtdoesnotinvolveasituationwherethe   petitionerexpressedhisdesiretoappeal.Hadthepetitionerslawyerfailedto n  properlyperfectanappealafterhavingbeeninstructedtodoso,thepetitionerwould W  beentitledtoreliefonthegroundsofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel....Ratherthe @ petitionerscaseisonewherehemayhavebeendeprivedofhisrighttoappeal )y throughhisowndalliance.b   8  ...The[P]#X9$XXX9$L#X9$XXX9$etitionerhadeveryopportunitytoadvisecounselofhisdesires.His 4 communicationswithcounselwerenotrestrictedbythestateeventhoughhewas  incarcerated.Hehadtheabilitytocommunicatebothbyphoneandbymail.He  simplydecidedtowaittoraisetheseissues,perhapsfortacticalreasons,untilthe  verylastmoment.   ItisfromthisorderofthetrialcourtthatthePetitionernowappeals. C #X9$XXX9$O#  II.Analysis N  S I(03L?+ ` hp x X?% P %PKS% Q %QiS% R X9$XXX9$    ThePetitionernowcontendsthatheshouldbegrantedpostconvictionreliefbecausehe " ! receivedineffectiveassistanceofcounselattrial.%RS#X9$XXX9$S#X/XXX9$Inordertoobtainpostconvictionrelief,a #" petitionermustshowthathisorherconvictionorsentenceisvoidorvoidablebecauseofthe $# abridgmentofaconstitutionalright.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030103(2003).Thepetitionerbearsthe w% $ burdenofprovingfactualallegationsinthepetitionforpostconvictionreliefbyclearand `&!% convincingevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.4030110(f)(2003).Uponreview,thiscourtwillnotre I'"& weighorreevaluatetheevidencebelow;allquestionsconcerningthecredibilityofwitnesses,the 2(#' weightandvaluetobegiventheirtestimony,andthefactualissuesraisedbytheevidencearetobe )k$( resolvedbythetrialjudge,nottheappellatecourts.Momonv.State,18S.W.3d152,156(Tenn. *T%) 1999);Henleyv.State,960S.W.2d572,57879(Tenn.1997).Apostconvictioncourtsfactual *=&* findingsaresubjecttoadenovoreviewbythisCourt;however,wemustaccordthesefactual +&'+ findingsapresumptionofcorrectness,whichisovercomeonlywhenapreponderanceofthe  evidenceiscontrarytothepostconvictioncourtsfactualfindings.Fieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,  456(Tenn.2001).Apostconvictioncourtsconclusionsoflawaresubjecttoapurelydenovo  reviewbythisCourt,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.Id.at457.TheTennesseeSupremeCourt k hasheldthattheissueofineffectiveassistanceofcounselisamixedquestionoflawandfactand, T assuch,issubjecttodenovoreview.Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999). =    TherightofacriminallyaccusedtorepresentationisguaranteedbyboththeSixth   AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitutionandArticleI,section9,oftheTennesseeConstitution.   Id.;Baxterv.Rose,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Thisrighttorepresentationincludesthe    rightto reasonablyeffectiveassistance.Burns,6S.W.3dat461.Inreviewingaclaimof p  ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,thisCourtmustdeterminewhethertheadvicegivenorservices Y  renderedbytheattorneyarewithintherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneysincriminal B  cases.Baxter,523S.W.2dat936.Toprevailonaclaimofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,a +{  petitionermustshowthat counselsrepresentationfellbelowanobjectivestandardof d  reasonableness,Stricklandv.Washington,466U.S.668,688(1984),andthatthisperformance M prejudicedthedefense,resultinginafailuretoproduceareliableresult.Id.at687;Cooperv.State, 6 849S.W.2d744,747(Tenn.1993).Tosatisfytherequirementofprejudice,apetitionermustshow  areasonableprobabilitythat,butforcounselsunreasonableerror,thefactfinderwouldhavehad  reasonabledoubtregardingthepetitionersguilt.Strickland,466U.S.at695.Thisreasonable  probabilitymustbe sufficienttoundermineconfidenceintheoutcome.Id.at694;seealsoHarris  v.State,875S.W.2d662,665(Tenn.1994). s   Whenevaluatinganineffectiveassistanceofcounselclaim,thereviewingcourtshouldjudge ; theattorneysperformancewithinthecontextofthecaseasawhole,takingintoaccountallrelevant $ circumstances.Strickland,466U.S.at690;Statev.Mitchell,753S.W.2d148,149(Tenn.Crim.   App.1988).Thereviewingcourtmustevaluatethequestionableconductfromtheattorneys  perspectiveatthetime.Strickland,466U.S.at690;Cooper,849S.W.2dat746;Hellardv.State,  629S.W.2d4,9(Tenn.1982).Indoingso,thereviewingcourtmustbehighlydeferentialand x  shouldindulgeastrongpresumptionthatcounselsconductfallswithinthewiderangeof a  reasonableprofessionalassistance.Burns,6S.W.3dat462.Counselshouldnotbedeemedtohave J! beenineffectivemerelybecauseadifferentprocedureorstrategymighthaveproducedadifferent 3" result.Williamsv.State,599S.W.2d276,27980(Tenn.Crim.App.1980).#X9$XXX/T#  #l   X/XXX9$  ThePetitionercontendsthathewasdeniedeffectiveassistanceofcounselbecauseneither % " CounselnorAppellateCounselproperlyadvisedhimaboutthelawregardingamotionfornewtrial ~&!# andnoticeofappeal.ThePetitionerassertsthatbothattorneysfailedtodeterminewhetherthe g'"$ Petitionerwishedtopursueanappeal.Further,thePetitionercontendsthat,sincethereisnowritten P(#% waiverofappealfiled,therewasnotaclearunderstandingbetweenCounselandAppellateCounsel 9)$& andthePetitionerregardingtheappealprocess.Conversely,theStateassertsthatbothCounseland "*r%' AppellateCounselcommunicatedwiththePetitionerregardingtheappellateprocess,butthatthe  +[&( Petitionerfailedtoinformthemofwhetherhewishedtopursueanappeal.Further,theState +D') contendsthatthePetitionerhasfailedtomeethisburdeninshowingthateitherattorneys  performanceamountedtoineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.  #X9$XXX/Gh#X/XXX9$  Aconstitutionalandstatutoryrightexistsforonelevelofappellatereview.SeeTaylorv. a State,No.W200001991CCAR3PC,2001WL468653(Tenn.Crim.App.,atJackson,May3, J 2001),noperm.app.filed;seealsoCollinsv.State,670S.W.2d219,221(Tenn.1984).A  3 defendantmaywaivetherighttoappeal. Thelaw,however,doesnotrequireanappealofa   convictioninacriminalcaseintheeventthedefendant,forreasonssatisfactorytohimself,desires   nottohavesuchanappeal.Serranov.State,133S.W.3d599,604(Tenn.2004)(citingCollins,   670S.W.2dat221(Tenn.1984)).Therearecertainsafeguardsinplacetoinsurethatthedefendant    isawareoftheresultsofhiswaiverofanappeal.#X9$XXX/ m#X/XXX9$ԀRule37(d),RulesofCriminalProcedureprovides, p  inpart: Y  8  Counselforalldefendants,whetherindigentornot,whohavearighttoappealfrom   ajudgmentofconviction,shalleithertimelyfilesuchnoticeofappealorfilewith ~  theclerkduringthetimewithinwhichthenoticeofappealcouldhavebeenfiled,a g  writtenwaiverofappealsignedbythedefendant.Suchwaiveroftherightofappeal P shallclearlyreflectthatthedefendantwasawareoftherightandvoluntarilywaived 9 it.Suchwaivershallbesubscribedtobycounselofrecordforthedefendant."r   Rule37(d)requiresthatadefendantknowinglyandvoluntarilywaivehisrighttoanappeal.The  failuretoconformtoRule37(d)doesnotviolateaconstitutionalright.SeeRainerv.State,958  S.W.2d356(Tenn.Crim.App.,atJackson,March27,1997),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.Sept. l 15,1997).#X9$XXX/p#X/XXX9$ԀThisCourthasheldthat [f]ailuretofileawrittenwaiverofappealdoesnotrendera U judgmentinvalidiftherecordclearlyandunambiguouslyshowsthatthedefendantknewofhisright > toappealandintendedtowaivethatright.Hendrixv.State,No.01C019708CR00343,1998WL 'w 70782(Tenn.Crim.App.,atNashville,Oct.9,1998),noperm.app.filed.Further,thisCourthas ` reversedthetrialcourtandgrantedadelayedappealwheretherewasnowrittenwaiverofappeal, I andtherewasnoclearunderstandingbetweencounselandclientregardingtheappealsprocess. In 2 ourview,thereisanaffirmativeobligationonthepartofcounseltodeterminewhetheraclientseeks  anappeal,evenifitrelatesonlytothesentence.Hurtv.State,No.01C019207CC00213,1993   WL39751,at*3(Tenn.Crim.App.,atNashville,Feb.18,1993),noperm.app.filed;seealsoPurdy ! v.State,No.02C019807CC00211,1999WL188177,at*4(Tenn.Crim.App.,atJackson,April " 7,1999).noperm.app.filed#X9$XXX/u#X/XXX9$;Beardv.State,No.01C019607CC00324,1997WL688997,at*2 o#  (Tenn.Crim.App.,atNashville,Nov.5,1997),perm.toappealdenied(Tenn.June8,1998).#X9$XXX/z#X/XXX9$ X$!   Inthecaseundersubmission,itappearsthatneitherCounselnorAppellate_Counsel & "# conformedwithRule37(d)byfilingawrittenwaiver.Thisfailure,however,doesnotentitlethe ' #$ Petitionertothereliefheseeksiftherecord clearlyandunambiguouslyshowsthatthePetitioner (#% knewofthisrighttoanappealand intendedtowaivethatright.SeeHendrix,1998WL707802, )$& at*2.Therefore,weturntodecidewhethertherecordevincestheserequirements. t*%'  +'(   Thepostconvictioncourtfound,anditisnotdisputedthat,thePetitionerknewofhisright  toappeal.Therefore,theonlyissuewemustdecideiswhetherthePetitionersfailuretocontact  CounselorAppellateCounselaboutwhetherhedesiredanappealclearlyandunambiguouslyshows  thatthePetitioner intendedtowaivehisrighttoappeal.Wepreviouslyaddressedthisissuein k _Purdy_Ԁv.State,No.02C019807CC00211,2001WL468653(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atJackson,April T 7,1999),noperm.app.filed.In_Purdy_,thepetitionerwasfoundguiltyofmurderinthesecond =  degree.Aftertheconviction,therewasnomotionfornewtrialfiledandnoappealwasperfected. & v Thepetitionerfiledaprosepetitionallegingthathisrighttoappealwasdeniedbecauseof  _ ineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Thepostconvictioncourtdeniedthepetition.ThisCourtstated  H thatadelayedappealhadpreviouslybeengranted ...wheretherewasnowrittenwaiverofappeal,  1  andtherewasnoclearunderstandingbetweencounselandclientregardingtheappealsprocess.    _Purdy_,at*4.TheCourtthenreversedthepostconvictioncourtsjudgmentbasedonitsconclusion   thattherewasnosubstantiveevidenceshowingthatthepetitionerwaivedhisrighttoappeal.   Specifically,theCourtstatedthatthepetitioner gavehisattorneynoinstructioneitherway.At   best,theproofshowsthatifthepetitionermadeadecisionastowhetherornottoappeal,hedidnot n  makethatdecisionknowntohisattorney.Likewise,therecordfailstodemonstrateadelegationof W  authoritytocounseltomakethatdecision.Id.ThisCourtconcludedthatabsentexpressauthority, @ ifanattorneymakestheunilateraldecisionnottoappeal,thatdecisionresultsinthedenialofa )y petitionersrighttoappeal. b   Inthecaseundersubmission,thetrialcourtfoundthatthePetitionerchose,orintended,to  waivehisrighttoappeal.Whileitistruethattherecordfailstoestablishanyaffirmativeactonthe s Petitionersparttopursuehisappeal,thereisnosubstantiveevidencethathewaivedtherightto \ appeal.Hegavehisattorneysnoinstructioneitherway.Atbest,theproofshowsthatifthe E Petitionermadeadecisionaboutwhethertoappeal,hedidnotmakethatdecisionknowntohis .~ attorneys.Likewise,therecordfailstoestablishthatthePetitionerdelegatedtheauthorityto g CounselorAppellateCounseltomakeadecisionregardinghisappeal.Absentthatexpress P authority,thedecisionoftheattorneysnottoappealresultedinthedenialofthePetitioners 9 constitutionalrighttoappeal. "   WhilewedonotquestionthegoodfaithofeitherofthePetitionersattorneys,therecord J! doesnotshowthatthePetitionerdefinitelywaivedhisrighttoappealand,therefore,wefindthat 3" theevidencepreponderatesagainstthefindingofthetrialcourtthatthePetitionerintendedorchose #l  towaivehis_________appeal._ԀAccordingly,thiscauseisremandedtothetrialcourttoallowthePetitioner $U! tofileamotionfornewtrialandtopursueadirectappealofthejudgmentofconvictionand $> " sentenceinaccordancewithTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4030113.#X9$XXX/{#  %'!# _@NN"III.Conclusion )$&    Inaccordancewiththeforegoingauthoritiesandreasoning,X9$XXX9$weconcludethatthePetitioner ,W'( hasprovenineffectiveassistanceofcounselbyclearandconvincingevidence.#X9$XXX9$#ԀTherefore,we  REVERSEthepostconvictioncourtsjudgment.  X9$XXX9$   `     h     #X9$XXX9$H#X/XXX9$   `     h     ___________________________________ M     `     h     ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER,JUDGE#X9$XXX/ߑ#X9$XXX9$Ԁ#X9$XXX9$#