ÿWPCO! 6°@ôЬï>¨¸?¨Ší‹Büø†mkS|rÔCގɉq(AÓ‰ê”:è«¢ÒÈ€k%—ËÆ ¼è¬“t Kå \&Ê›wØš3ƒK!fDEZ­øÐØñ»Ó·çÛV’¨¹—¦øKž:çî÷ºª?zg ñ( úqá R¤§¶ƒ+áãÖ„àª6 íÕ9hAÓ»ª‡­âmû&æìÁ„JµâÂTÌpk€÷¥€»îÉa=5ù>§«EJŠðå~\ý*á yUíC¾±³‡K= èÏ•ëLE$Ò%¢@ ÙM.þZ@U¸’beô>…jâíSPàI$8Ñ2Ü®:€jþhÎküÓvP%»¢‘•)ñ™$‹™m°I{½oó»—¸YÆÉ.÷–²ã®%2yà{à÷QÁî#IIg㥹é_ÎïMo2:„~xhÐ{SʸmrSJ—ÿ?½†¬ ê‹fIŽ+B“}wÀ”y[¯ü7p•Ã̬Øaò 1˜Ye[(î`”4îµ[T-Õ™-‘q.Û–±ÍÛ]~×™le;¢˜™úÙb %\Nb 0ˆdUNì 0D:UN~ zÌ zF ÒÀ Ò’ ^ d wp 4t ƈ ÆN Æ ÆÚ  N¯± m³EÊ#ÁÌv 1u 72x ª¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯b······························ 1¿¿¿¿¿¿ 0ëLLLL B77 0¤T D3ø D-+ 0KXX AS£Æö 0¤¼ 0D` A«¤ »(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPT ˜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.wptC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÓ³Š-s üPH,˜CC¢Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 53|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 lÝ ƒR>Œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€4(c)€provides€that€ð ð[a]€prematurely€filed€notice€of€appeal€shall€beÐ ° Ðtreated€as€filed€after€the€entry€of€the€judgment€from€which€the€appeal€is€taken€and€on€the€day€thereof.ðð3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) ûÝ ƒR>Œ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾åò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô¾åòòô¾åÔWe€recognize€that€the€defendant€had€no€control€over€whether€the€state€appealed€from€the€post„conviction€grantÐ ° Ðof€a€delayed€appeal;€however,€we€do€not€believe€that€this€courtððs€decision€today€works€a€hardship€upon€the€defendantÐ tÄ Ðor€leaves€him€without€a€remedy.€Although€we€may€not€now€adjudicate€any€issues€in€the€defendantððs€post„convictionÐ 8ˆ Ðproceeding,€we€believe€the€post„conviction€court,€as€a€result€of€todayððs€decision,€€will€recognize€the€invalidity€of€its€orderÐ üL Ðwhich€granted€the€delayed€appeal€and€which,€incidentally,€dismissed€the€post„conviction€proceeding.€Thus,€we€foreseeÐ À Ðthat€the€defendant€will€find€that,€due€to€the€invalidity€of€the€order,€his€post„conviction€proceeding€is€still€pending€andÐ „Ô Ðawaiting€his€attempt€to€convince€that€court€that€he€was€òòprejudicedóó€by€his€trial€counselððs€deficient€performance€in€failingÐ H ˜ Ðto€preserve€appellate€issues€in€addition€to€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Kenneth€S.€Griffinóó,€slip€op.€at€3€(whenÐ  \ Ðprevious€direct€appeal€was€heard€on€merits,€the€failure€to€present€other€appellate€issues€must€be€challenged€through€theÐ Ð  Ðtraditional€convention€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€entailing€a€showing€of€deficient€performance€òòandóó€prejudice).€Ð ” ä  ÐWe€note€that,€in€the€context€of€€counselððs€ineffective€assistance,€prejudice€means€that€the€petitioner€would€have€presentedÐ X ¨  Ðissues€on€appeal€that€would€have€resulted€in€ð ða€new€trial€or,€if€the€deficient€performance€was€related€only€to€sentencing,Ð  l  Ðto€a€new€sentencing€hearing.ðð€€òòId.€€óó€In€that€scenario,€the€post„conviction€courtððs€response€is€to€order€a€new€trial€or€a€newÐ à 0  Ðsentencing€hearing,€as€the€case€may€be,€not€to€order€a€new€appeal.€€€Ô#†ô¾åòòô¾å~#ÔÔ‡ô¾åòòô¾åÔÐ ¤ô  ÐÌÔ#†ô¾åòòô¾åU#ÔÔ‡ô¾åòòô¾åÔà  àÔ#†ô¾åòòô¾å­#Ô - ù-(× CEMU]emu}AutoList1(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(a)(|G2>Œ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¾åò»»Ô d(|3¾ï$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3¾ï$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼»»»ÔÑ8€ZXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îÜÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼»îîÜ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJuly€17,€2002€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XZX»¼ÔÌò òÔ#†¼»XXZ#ÔòòóóDONALD€WALLACE€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóóÔ‡XZX»¼Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Stewart€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€4„769„CR„96€€€€€€Robert€E.€Burch,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02722„CCA„R3„PC€„€Filed€December€9,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓPursuant€to€the€grant€of€a€delayed€appeal,€the€defendant,€Donald€Wallace,€seeks€a€new€trial€inÐ xÈ  Ðconnection€with€his€homicide€conviction€arising€from€the€1996€shooting€death€of€Ô_ÔMelindaÔ_Ô€SueÐ d´ ÐPerrin.€€Previously,€the€defendant€obtained€relief€on€direct€appeal€when€his€first„degree€murderÐ P  Ðconviction€was€reduced€to€second„degree€murder.€€òòState€v.€Donald€Wallaceóó,€No.€01C01„9711„CC„Ð <Œ Ð00526€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€30,€1998).€€After€review,€we€conclude€that€the€lower€courtÐ (x Ðlacked€statutory€authority€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal,€which,€in€turn,€deprives€this€court€of€jurisdictionÐ d Ðto€hear€the€appeal.€€Accordingly,€we€dismiss€the€defendantððs€appeal.Ð P ÐÓ³ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Appeal€Dismissed.ó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.,Ô#†¼»àXZ‰#ÔÔ‡XZX.¼Ô€óódelivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Alan€E.€Glennóó,€J.,Ð ° Ðjoined.€€òòThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.,óó€not€participating.Ð œì ÐÌRichard€McGee,€Nashville,€Tennessee;€and€James€O.€Martin,€III,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€theÐ tÄ ÐAppellant,€Donald€Wallace.Ð `° ÐÌMichael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€David€H.€Ô_ÔFindleyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€DanÐ 8!ˆ  ÐÔ_ÔAlsobrooksÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Robert€S.€Wilson,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð $"t! Ðfor€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓvÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼»XXZ #ÔÔ‡XZX»¼ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼»XXZ; #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XZX»¼ÔÔ‡XZXXXZÔà  àà ` àA€Stewart€County€Circuit€Court€jury€convicted€the€defendant,€Donald€Wallace,€ofÐ À&"& Ðpremeditated,€first„degree€murder€in€connection€with€the€June€8,€1996,€shooting€death€of€€Ô_ÔMelindaÔ_ÔÐ ¬'ü"' ÐSue€Perrin.€€An€untimely€motion€for€new€trial€was€filed,€the€effect€of€which€restricted€direct€appellateÐ ˜(è#( Ðreview€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence.€òòóó€€The€circumstances€surrounding€the€shootingÐ „)Ô$) Ðare€set€forth€in€detail€in€the€courtððs€opinion€filed€September€30,€1998.€€òòSee€State€v.€Donald€Wallaceóó,Ð p*À%* ÐNo.€01C01„9711„CC„00526€(Tenn.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.,€Nashville,€Sept.€30,€1998).Ð \+¬&+ Ðâ âÐ H,˜',ý› ÐÔ_Ôà  àà ` àEssentially,€the€evidence€at€trial€showed€that€the€victim€was€the€defendantððs€girlfriend.€Ð ° Ðâ âOn€June€8,€the€couple€drove€to€the€home€of€Charles€Morgan,€the€defendantððs€friend,€where€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€prevailed€upon€Morgan€to€sell€to€him€a€sawed„off€pump€shotgun€and€two€shells.€€òòIdóó.,€slipÐ ˆØ Ðop.€at€2„3.€€The€defendant€told€Morgan€that€ð ðhe€needed€the€shotgun€for€protection€because€somebodyÐ tÄ Ðwas€threatening€to€kill€him.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€3.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€the€sale,€the€couple€drove€to€the€Clarksville€residence€of€Norman€and€LindaÐ 8 ˆ ÐWallace.€€òòId.óó€€Norman€Wallace€and€the€defendant€left€a€short€time€later.€€They€first€drove€to€the€homeÐ $ t Ðof€the€defendantððs€mother,€and€then€they€tried€to€locate€ð ðRed,ðð€who€had€been€threatening€theÐ  ` Ðdefendantððs€mother€and€girlfriend€because€of€an€outstanding€debt€that€the€defendant€owed.€€òòId.€óó€€TheÐ ü L  Ðmen€failed€to€find€ð ðRedðð€and€next€drove€to€the€residence€of€Junior€Shepard€in€Big€Rock.€€òòId.óó€Ð è 8  ÐShephardððs€wife€threatened€to€summon€the€police€if€the€men€did€not€leave,€whereupon€they€departedÐ Ô$  Ðand€returned€to€Norman€Wallaceððs€home.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€4.Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àDuring€the€menððs€absence,€the€victim€and€Linda€Wallace€chatted€and€visited.€€LindaÐ ˜è  ÐWallace€testified€at€trial€that€ð ðduring€this€visit,€Melinda€told€her€that€she€was€afraid€of€theÐ „Ô  Ð[defendant]€because€he€had€previously€pulled€a€gun€on€her.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Other€than€that€statement,€bothÐ pÀ ÐNorman€and€Linda€Wallace€testified€that€there€did€not€appear€to€be€any€ð ðdiscordðð€between€the€victimÐ \¬ Ðand€the€defendant;€in€fact,€the€defendant€frequently€addressed€the€victim€as€ð ðbabyðð€or€ð ðhoneyðð€in€theÐ H˜ ÐWallacesðð€presence.€€òòIdóó.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àà ` àLater€that€day,€shortly€after€7:00€p.m.,€several€patrons€at€J.T.ððs€Bait€Shop€in€StewartÐ  \ ÐCounty€noticed€a€dark„colored€vehicle€pull€into€the€parking€lot€at€a€high€rate€of€speed€and€come€toÐ øH Ða€sudden€stop.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€5.€€The€driverððs€side€door€opened,€and€a€manððs€foot€appeared.€Ð ä4 ÐBystanders€heard€a€loud€boom€and€saw€smoke€emerge€from€the€car€windows;€some€of€the€witnessesÐ Ð  Ðdescribed€what€appeared€to€be€ð ðthe€head€of€the€female€passenger€exploding.ðð€€òòIdóó.€After€theÐ ¼  Ðexplosion,€the€driver€of€the€vehicle€drove€out€of€the€parking€lot.€€At€trial,€the€witnesses€identified€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€as€the€driver€and€the€victim€as€the€female€passenger.€€òòIdóó.Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€following€day,€the€victimððs€body€was€discovered€in€a€remote€area€in€StewartÐ l¼ ÐCounty.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€5„6.€€Eighteen€days€after€the€shooting,€the€defendant€voluntarily€surrenderedÐ X ¨ Ðto€law€enforcement€authorities.€€Investigators€never€recovered€the€murder€weapon€and€never€locatedÐ D!” Ðthe€defendantððs€vehicle.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€6„7.€€At€trial,€the€defendant€suggested€that€the€victimððs€fatalÐ 0"€  Ðwound€was€self„inflicted.€€The€jury€disagreed€and€convicted€the€defendant€of€premeditated,€first„Ð #l! Ðdegree€murder.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€7.Ð $X" ÐÌà  àà ` àFinding€insufficient€proof€of€premeditation€in€the€record,€this€court€on€direct€appealÐ à%0!$ Ðreduced€the€defendantððs€conviction€to€second„degree€murder€and€remanded€for€resentencing.€€òòId.óó,Ð Ì&"% Ðslip€op.€at€10„12.€€On€remand,€the€defendant€was€resentenced€to€25€yearsðð€incarceration,€and€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðsentence€was€subsequently€affirmed€on€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Donald€Wallaceóó,€No.€M1999„00954„CCA„Ð ¤(ô#' ÐR3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Nov.€29,€1999).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àStill€aggrieved€by€his€plight,€the€defendant€filed€a€ð ðPetition€for€Relief€FromÐ ° Ðâ âConviction€and€Sentenceðð€on€September€29,€1999,€while€the€appeal€of€his€resentence€was€stillÐ œì Ðpending.€€An€amended€petition€was€filed€approximately€six€months€later.€€An€evidentiary€hearingÐ ˆØ Ðwas€held€on€March€27,€2000,€before€a€judge€who€had€not€presided€at€the€defendantððs€trial.€€TheÐ tÄ Ðhearing€judge€took€the€matter€under€advisement€and€later€entered€an€Order€and€a€separateÐ `° ÐMemorandum€Opinion€dismissing€the€petition€without€prejudice€and€granting€the€defendant€aÐ L œ Ðdelayed€appeal.€€In€connection€therewith,€the€hearing€judge€(a)€allowed€the€defendant€to€file€a€motionÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€new€trial,€(b)€referred€the€motion€to€the€original,€presiding€judge,€and€(c)€permitted€the€defendantÐ $ t Ðto€appeal€any€adverse€ruling€on€his€new€trial€motion.€€Neither€the€state€nor€the€defendant€appealedÐ  ` Ðthe€hearing€judgeððs€order.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€April€17,€2001,€pursuant€to€the€Order€and€Memorandum€Opinion,€the€defendantÐ Ô$  Ðfiled€a€Motion€for€New€Trial;€a€Supplemental€Motion€for€New€Trial€was€submitted€on€SeptemberÐ À  Ð13,€2001.€€For€reasons€that€are€not€evident€in€the€appellate€record,€the€post„conviction€hearing€judgeÐ ¬ü  Ðð!ð€not€the€original€trial€judge€ð!ð€considered€the€motions€and€denied€relief€on€October€12,€2001.€€OnÐ ˜è  ÐOctober€26,€2001,€the€defendant€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€from€the€oral€ruling.€€According€to€theÐ „Ô  Ðrecord€before€us,€a€written€Order€denying€the€request€for€a€new€trial€was€not€entered€until€JanuaryÐ pÀ Ð11,€2002.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€we€shall€explain,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€another€ð ðdirect€appealðð€from€theÐ 4„ Ðdenial€of€his€motion€for€new€trial.€€We€are,€therefore,€unable€to€consider€the€merits€of€the€new€trialÐ  p Ðissues€that€he€has€raised.€€We€note€that€after€the€defendant€filed€his€appellate€brief€with€the€court,€theÐ  \ Ðstate€moved€to€dismiss€the€appeal.€€At€that€juncture,€we€denied€the€stateððs€motion€and€ordered€it€toÐ øH Ðfile€its€brief.€€Then,€during€oral€argument,€we€revisited€the€propriety€of€the€defendantððs€appeal€andÐ ä4 Ðrequested€supplemental€briefing€from€the€parties.€€Having€received€and€reviewed€the€supplementalÐ Ð  Ðbriefs,€it€is€our€considered€opinion€that€the€defendantððs€appeal€must€be€dismissed.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àTo€explain€our€ruling,€we€start€with€the€defendantððs€September€1999€Petition€forÐ ”ä ÐRelief€from€Conviction€and€Sentence€and€the€subsequent€amendment€thereto.€€In€his€petition,€asÐ €Ð Ðamended,€the€defendant€requested€a€new€trial€on€the€grounds€of€(a)€trial€counselððs€ineffectiveness€inÐ l¼ Ðfailing€to€file€a€timely€motion€for€new€trial,€in€failing€to€confront€the€stateððs€evidence€and€theory€ofÐ X ¨ Ðthe€case,€and€in€failing€to€present€a€proper€theory€of€the€case;€and€(b)€the€stateððs€suppression€ofÐ D!” Ðexculpatory€evidence€that€during€a€TBI€interview€on€June€10,€1996,€Linda€Wallace€said€that€theÐ 0"€  Ðvictim€told€her€that€she€was€òònotóó€scared€of€the€defendant.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€only€two€witnesses€testified:€€defendantððs€trial€counselÐ ô$D # Ðand€one€of€the€assistant€district€attorneys€general€who€prosecuted€the€case.€€Their€testimony€was,€byÐ à%0!$ Ðand€large€predictable.€€Trial€counsel€denied€ever€seeing€or€being€provided€with€a€copy€of€the€JuneÐ Ì&"% Ð10,€1996,€TBI€interview€of€Linda€Wallace€wherein€she€said€that€the€victim€told€her€that€she€was€notòòóóÐ ¸'#& Ðscared€of€the€defendant.€€Trial€counsel€explained€the€significance€of€the€interview€report€and€howÐ ¤(ô#' Ðhe€could€have€used€it€to€impeach€Linda€Wallace€at€trial€and€to€undercut€the€stateððs€case.€€ProsecutionÐ ° Ðcounsel€emphasized€that€he€followed€an€open„file€discovery€policy€and€expressed€his€belief€that€theÐ œì Ðdocument€was€in€the€case€file€when€it€was€offered€to€trial€counsel€to€review€and€photocopy.€€InÐ ˆØ Ðprosecution€counselððs€opinion,€the€interview€report€was€neither€exculpatory€nor€particularlyÐ tÄ Ðsignificant;€any€importance,€moreover,€according€to€prosecution€counsel,€was€obviated€by€theÐ `° Ðappellate€courtððs€reduction€of€the€first„degree€murder€conviction€to€second„degree€murder.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àAt€the€post„conviction€hearing,€trial€counsel€was€asked€to€explain€why€he€did€not€fileÐ $ t Ða€timely€new„trial€motion.€€He€testified€that€when€he€was€retained€to€represent€the€defendant,€he€hadÐ  ` Ðthe€client€sign€a€waiver€acknowledging€that€counsel€would€not€be€representing€him€on€any€appeal.€Ð ü L  ÐWith€the€waiver,€trial€counsel€said€that€he€was€under€the€impression€that€he€ð ðwould€not€have€to€getÐ è 8  Ðthe€Courtððs€permission€to€be€relieved€from€any€appeals.ðð€€Accordingly,€after€the€verdict,€trial€counselÐ Ô$  Ðsent€the€defendant€a€letter€with€a€form€motion€for€new€trial€and€advised€the€defendant€of€the€timeÐ À  Ðframe€for€filing€the€motion€and€of€possible€issues€to€be€€included€in€the€motion.€€Subsequently,€trialÐ ¬ü  Ðcounsel€did€file€a€written€motion€to€withdraw€as€counsel,€which€the€trial€court€granted€because€in€theÐ ˜è  Ðinterim€the€defendant€had€submitted€a€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€new€trial€that€included€allegations€ofÐ „Ô  Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àà ` àDespite€that€the€defendantððs€post„conviction€petition€recited€numerous,€specificÐ H˜ Ðinstances€of€alleged€lapses€and€omissions€by€former€counsel€at€the€trial€stage,€at€the€close€of€the€proofÐ 4„ Ðon€the€petition,€the€defendant€advocated€that€the€court€grant€a€delayed€appeal€so€that€he€could€raise€Ð  p Ðerrors€that€he€claimed€trial€counsel€should€have€included€in€a€timely€filed€motion€for€new€trial.€Ð  \ ÐAdditionally,€the€defendant€argued€that€the€court€should€order€a€new€trial€as€a€remedy€for€the€stateððsÐ øH Ðsuppression€of€the€exculpatory€TBI€interview€report€concerning€Linda€Wallace.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€post„conviction€court€took€the€matter€under€advisement,€and€approximately€oneÐ ¼  Ðyear€later€it€issued€a€written€memorandum€opinion€and€entered€a€separate€order.€€Regarding€theÐ ¨ø Ðexculpatory€evidence€suppression€claim,€the€court€found€that€the€TBI€report€had€not€been€suppressed,Ð ”ä Ðthat€the€information€in€the€report€would€have€been€only€marginally€favorable€to€the€defendant,€andÐ €Ð Ðthat€the€information€was€not€constitutionally€ð ðmaterialðð€in€the€sense€that€its€absence€does€notÐ l¼ Ðð ðundermine[]€confidence€in€the€outcome€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòSee€Kyles€v.€Whitleyóó,€514€U.S.€419,€434,€115Ð X ¨ ÐS.€Ct.€1555,€1566€(1995).Ð D!” ÐÌà  àà ` àRegarding€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€post„conviction€court€ordered€asÐ #l! Ðfollows:Ð $X" ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °Ó2.€€As€to€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€the€Court€findsÐ à%0!$ Ðthat€trial€counsel€did€not€timely€file€a€Motion€for€New€trial€and€didÐ Ì&"% Ðnot€comply€with€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€37(e).€€ThisÐ ¸'#& Ðfailure€was€not€within€the€range€of€competence€demanded€of€counselÐ ¤(ô#' Ðin€a€criminal€case€and€prejudiced€the€Petitioner€in€that€he€was€deniedÐ )à$( Ðhis€right€to€appellate€review€of€all€issues€other€than€sufficiency€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðevidence.€€This€court€finds€that€the€remedy€for€the€Petitioner€is€theÐ h+¸&* Ðgranting€of€a€delayed€appeal€as€the€proper€procedure€to€be€employedÐ ° Ðwhen€a€Petitioner€seeks€both€the€delay€of€an€appeal€and€additionalÐ œì Ðpost€conviction€relief€is€the€granting€of€a€delayed€appeal€and€theÐ ˆØ Ðdismissal€of€the€post€conviction€petition€òòwithout€prejudiceóó.Ð tÄ ÐÌà ¸ àIt€is€hereby€ORDERED,€ADJUDGED,€and€DECREED€thatÐ L œ ÐPetitioner€shall€have€thirty€(30)€days€from€the€date€of€this€Order€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€filing€of€a€Motion€for€New€Trial.€€This€Motion€shall€be€ruled€uponÐ $ t Ðby€the€Judge€who€presided€at€the€trial€.€.€.€.€€In€the€event€that€theÐ  ` ÐMotion€for€New€Trial€is€denied,€then€Petitioner€shall€have€the€right€toÐ ü L  Ðappeal€that€ruling.€The€Petition€for€Post€Conviction€Relief€isÐ è 8  Ðotherwise€dismissed€without€prejudice.Ð Ô$  ÐÓ °H?ÓÓ °:?ÓÌà  àà ` àIn€our€view,€the€post„conviction€court€applied€an€erroneous€standard€of€prejudice€inÐ ¬ü  Ðdealing€with€the€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel,€and€it€lacked€the€authority€to€order€aÐ ˜è  Ðdelayed€appeal.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€distinction€between€the€denial€of€appellate€proceedings€altogether€and€the€allegedÐ \¬ Ðdenial€of€a€particular€caliber€of€appellate€proceedings€is,€in€the€first€instance,€constitutionallyÐ H˜ Ðsignificant.€€In€òòRoe€v.€Flores„Ortegaóó,€528€U.S.€470,€120€S.€Ct.€1029€(2000),€defense€counsel€failedÐ 4„ Ðto€file€a€notice€of€appeal,€thereby€forfeiting€the€defendantððs€appeal€altogether.€€The€Supreme€CourtÐ  p Ðheld€that€the€two„part€test€for€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€in€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.Ð  \ Ð668,€104€S.€Ct.€2052€(1984),€applied€to€such€a€claim;€however,€the€Supreme€Court€modifiedÐ øH ÐòòStricklandóóððs€actual„prejudice€prong€and€adopted€a€ð ðpresumptionðð€of€prejudice€to€account€for€theÐ ä4 Ðð ðeven€more€serious€denial€of€the€entire€judicial€proceeding€itself,€which€a€defendant€wanted€at€theÐ Ð  Ðtime€and€to€which€he€had€a€right.ðð€€528€U.S.€at€483,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1038.€€The€Supreme€Court€summedÐ ¼  Ðup€that€it€could€not€afford€any€presumption€of€reliability€ð ðto€judicial€proceedings€that€never€tookÐ ¨ø Ðplace.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€120€S.€Ct.€at€1038.€€Similarly,€the€presumption€of€prejudice€standard€has€been€heldÐ ”ä Ðapplicable€when€a€defendant€was€denied€the€benefit€of€counsel€altogether€on€appeal.€€òòSee€Penson€v.Ð €Ð ÐOhioóó,€488€U.S.€85,€109€S.€Ct.€346€(1988)€(denial€of€counsel€left€petitioner€completely€withoutÐ l¼ Ðrepresentation€during€the€appellate€courtððs€actual€decisional€process).Ð X ¨ ÐÓÓÌà  àà ` àBy€contrast,€òòStricklandóóððs€actual„prejudice€standard€has€been€applied€to€a€defendantððsÐ 0"€  Ðcomplaint€that€his€appointed€counsel€on€appeal€failed€to€find€and€pursue€arguable€appellate€issues,Ð #l! ÐòòSmith€v.€Robbinsóó,€528€U.S.€259,€285„87,€120€S.€Ct.€746,€764„65€(2000),€and€to€a€claim€that€counselÐ $X" Ðfailed€to€make€a€particular€argument€on€appeal,€òòSmith€v.€Murrayóó,€477€U.S.€527,€535„36,€106€S.€Ct.Ð ô$D # Ð2661,€2666„67€(1986).€€As€for€counselððs€ineffectiveness€at€the€trial€level,€the€actual„prejudiceÐ à%0!$ Ðstandard€is€the€norm,€except€in€a€case€of€actual€or€constructive€denial€of€counsel,€òòUnited€States€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐCronicóó,€466€U.S.€648,€658„61,€104€S.€Ct.€2039,€2046„48€(1984),€when€the€state€has€interfered€withÐ ¸'#& Ðcounselððs€assistance,€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€692,€104€S.€Ct.€at€2067,€or€when€ð ðcounsel€is€burdenedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðby€an€actual€conflict€of€interest,ðð€òòCuyler€v.€Sullivanóó,€446€U.S.€335,€349„50,€100€S.€Ct.€1708,€1716„19Ð )à$( Ð(1980).òòóóÐ |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àIn€this€case,€the€post„conviction€court€incorrectly€presumed€that€prejudice€flowedÐ ° Ðfrom€trial€counselððs€inattention€after€the€defendant€was€convicted.€€At€one€point€in€its€MemorandumÐ œì ÐOpinion,€the€court€identified€the€prejudice€that€the€defendant€suffered€as€being€ð ðdeprived€of€his€rightÐ ˆØ Ðto€an€appeal.ðð€€In€the€accompanying€Order,€the€post„conviction€court€then€wrote€that€the€defendantÐ tÄ Ðwas€prejudiced€ð ðin€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€appellate€review€of€all€issues.ððÐ `° ÐÌà  àà ` àPursuant€to€the€scheme€of€appellate€review€in€Tennessee,€the€failure€to€file€a€motionÐ 8 ˆ Ðfor€new€trial€does€not€foreclose€a€defendantððs€right€to€an€appeal.€€Appellate€Procedure€Rule€3(e)Ð $ t Ðprovides,€in€relevant€part,Ð  ` ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓAn€appeal€as€of€right€may€be€taken€without€moving€in€arrest€ofÐ è 8  Ðjudgment,€praying€for€an€appeal,€entry€of€an€order€permitting€anÐ Ô$  Ðappeal€or€compliance€with€any€other€similar€procedure.€€Provided,Ð À  Ðhowever,€that€in€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€forÐ ¬ü  Ðreview€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€or€exclusionÐ ˜è  Ðof€evidence,€jury€instructions€granted€or€refused,€misconduct€ofÐ „Ô  Ðjurors,€parties€or€counsel,€or€other€action€committed€or€occurringÐ pÀ Ðduring€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€other€ground€upon€which€a€new€trial€isÐ \¬ Ðsought,€unless€the€same€was€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€a€newÐ H˜ Ðtrial;€otherwise€such€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.Ð 4„ ÐÓ °´UÓÓ °¦UÓÌTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).€€To€be€sure,€the€failure€to€file€a€new€trial€motion€can€have€significantÐ  \ Ðconsequences€in€terms€of€limiting€the€issues€that€an€appellate€court€will€consider€and€decide,€but€theÐ øH Ðappeal€itself€remains€viable.€€Furthermore,€in€many€instances€the€same€limiting„type€consequencesÐ ä4 Ðattend€counselððs€failure€to€object€or€raise€an€issue€during€trial€or€counselððs€omission€of€a€particularÐ Ð  Ðground€in€an€otherwise€adequate€motion€for€new€trial.€€On€occasion,€the€doctrine€of€ð ðplain€errorðð€willÐ ¼  Ðovercome€these€waivers,€but€when€it€does€not,€the€remedy€is€not€a€delayed€appeal€premised€on€aÐ ¨ø Ðpresumption€of€prejudice.€€Were€it€otherwise,€our€court€would€be€clogged€with€legions€of€delayedÐ ”ä Ðappeals,€thereby€putting€an€end€to€finality€of€judgments.Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€federal€constitutional€guidelines€for€when€the€prejudice€prong€of€òòStricklandóó€mayÐ X ¨ Ðbe€presumed€to€exist€are€mirrored€in€our€case€law€and€in€our€statutes.€€Beginning€with€the€legislation,Ð D!” ÐCode€section€40„30„213€states,Ð 0"€  ÐÌÓ€ L(× 83ÓÓ °ÓÓ °Óà ¸ à(a)€€When€the€trial€judge€conducting€a€hearing€pursuant€to€[theÐ $X" ÐPost„Conviction€Procedure€Act]€finds€that€the€petitioner€was€òòdeniedÐ ô$D # Ðthe€right€to€an€appealóó€from€the€original€conviction€in€violation€of€theÐ à%0!$ ÐConstitution€of€the€United€States€or€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€andÐ Ì&"% Ðthat€there€is€an€adequate€record€of€the€original€trial€proceedingÐ ¸'#& Ðavailable€for€such€review,€the€judge€can:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà ¸ à(1)€€If€a€transcript€was€filed,€grant€a€delayed€appeal;Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà ¸ à(2)€€If,€in€the€original€proceedings,€a€motion€for€a€new€trialÐ ° Ðwas€filed€and€overruled€but€no€transcript€was€filed,€authorize€theÐ œì Ðfiling€of€the€transcript€in€the€convicting€court;€orÐ ˆØ ÐÌà ¸ à(3)€€If€no€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€filed€in€the€originalÐ `° Ðproceeding,€authorize€such€motion€to€be€made€before€the€original€trialÐ L œ Ðcourt€within€thirty€(30)€days.€€Such€motion€shall€be€disposed€of€by€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðoriginal€trial€court€as€if€the€motion€had€been€filed€under€authority€ofÐ $ t ÐRule€59€of€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.Ð  ` ÐÓ °§^ÓÓ °™^ÓÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„213(a)€(1997)€(emphasis€added).Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€antecedent€condition,€specified€in€the€statute,€for€granting€a€delayed€appeal€is€thatÐ À  Ðthe€post„conviction€petitioner€has€been€wrongly€denied€the€right€to€an€appeal.€€In€that€situation,€theÐ ¬ü  Ðstatute€does€not€require€the€petitioner€to€demonstrate€a€reasonable€probability€of€a€favorable€resultÐ ˜è  Ðon€appeal€ð!ð€to€wit,€actual€prejudice.€€In€that€limited€instance,€prejudice€is€presumed.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àTurning€to€decisional€precedence,€Tennessee€follows€the€federal€rationale€forÐ \¬ Ðpresumed€prejudice€when€an€attorney€actively€represents€conflicting€interests,€òòState€v.€Thompsonóó,Ð H˜ Ð768€S.W.2d€239,€245€(Tenn.€1989),€in€a€case€of€actual€or€constructive€denial€of€counsel,€and€whenÐ 4„ Ðthe€state€interferes€with€counselððs€assistance,€òòsee€Wilcoxson€v.€Stateóó,€22€S.W.3d€289,€312€(Tenn.Ð  p ÐCrim.€App.€1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000).€In€òòCooper€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€744€(Tenn.Ð  \ Ð1993),€we€see€the€supreme€court€insisting€on€actual€prejudice€when€the€petitioner€was€complainingÐ øH Ðabout€the€performance€of€appellate€counsel€in€limiting€the€issues€raised€on€appeal.Ð ä4 ÐÌÓ °ÓÓ °ÓMoreover,€the€petitioner's€reliance€on€òòPenson€v.€[Ohio]óó,€òòsupraóó,€isÐ ¼  Ðmisplaced.€€Ineffective€assistance€of€appellate€counsel€was€not€atÐ ¨ø Ðissue€in€that€case.€€Instead,€the€defendant€had€been€denied€his€right€toÐ ”ä Ðassistance€of€counsel€on€appeal€when€his€appointed€counsel€wasÐ €Ð Ðallowed€to€withdraw,€and€the€court€did€not€appoint€a€second€attorneyÐ l¼ Ðto€represent€the€defendant€even€after€determining€that€the€trial€recordÐ X ¨ Ðsupported€several€arguable€claims.€€The€òòPensonóó€court€stated€thatÐ D!” Ðprejudice€can€be€presumed€in€those€cases€where€the€defendant€isÐ 0"€  Ðdenied€the€right€to€assistance€of€counsel€on€appeal.€€488€U.S.€at€88,Ð #l! Ð109€S.Ct.€at€354,€102€L.Ed.2d€at€310.€€€In€the€present€case,€theÐ $X" Ðpetitioner€was€afforded€his€right€to€assistance€of€counsel€on€appeal,Ð ô$D # Ðso€no€presumption€of€prejudice€arises.Ð à%0!$ ÐÓ °ŒiÓÓ °~iÓÌòòIdóó.€at€747„48.€€òòAccord€Campbell€v.€Stateóó,€904€S.W.2d€594,€597€(Tenn.€1995)€(petitioner€does€notÐ ¸'#& Ðsuggest€specific€issue€that,€if€addressed€in€the€appellate€brief,€would€have€affected€the€result€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðappeal;€thus,€petitioner's€challenge€to€the€brief€and€allegation€of€ineffective€assistance€of€appellateÐ )à$( Ðcounsel€is€without€merit).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€the€petitioner€had€the€benefit€of€counsel€during€his€first€directÐ ° Ðappeal€to€this€court.€€Indeed,€that€appeal€successfully€overturned€his€conviction€of€first„degreeÐ œì Ðmurder.€€From€the€foregoing,€it€follows€that€the€petitioner€in€this€case€was€not€ð ðdenied€the€right€toÐ ˆØ Ðan€appeal€from€the€original€conviction,ðð€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„213(a)€(1997),€and€that€CodeÐ tÄ Ðsection€40„30„213(a)€did€not€authorize€a€delayed€appeal€in€the€petitionerððs€situation.€€Nor€do€we€seeÐ `° Ðan€applicable€constitutional€imperative€for€allowing€the€second€appeal€in€the€absence€of€a€showingÐ L œ Ðof€prejudice.€€To€obtain€post„conviction€relief,€the€petitioner€needed€to€demonstrate€ineffectiveÐ 8 ˆ Ðassistance€of€counsel€„€„€that€is,€both€deficient€performance€and€actual€prejudice€in€the€sense€that€hadÐ $ t Ðspecific€issues€been€included€in€a€new„trial€motion€and€addressed€on€appeal,€they€would€haveÐ  ` Ðresulted€in€a€new€trial€or€other€appropriate€relief.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€evaluation,€we€believe,€is€consistent€with€the€approach€taken€in€òòState€v.€KennethÐ Ô$  ÐS.€Griffinóó,€No.€E2000„02471„CCA„R3„CD€(Knoxville,€June€25,€2001),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð À  Ð2001).€€In€òòKenneth€S.€Griffinóó,€this€court€dismissed€the€defendantððs€delayed€appeal,€which€raised€anÐ ¬ü  Ðissue€omitted€from€a€brief€in€his€initial€direct€appeal,€because€the€defendant€ð ðha[d]€clearly€alreadyÐ ˜è  Ðhad€a€direct€appeal€heard€on€the€merits.ðð€€Slip€op.€at€3Ô#†XZXXXZÄ #ÔÔ‡XZXXXZÔ.€€This€opinion€is€subsequent€to€and€supersedes,Ð „Ô  Ðwe€believe,€the€decision€in€òòMichael€Todd€Drinnon€v.€Stateóó€(òòDrinnon€IIóó)Ô#†XZXXXZvv#ÔÔ‡XZXXXZÔ,€No.€E1999„2001„CCA„R3„Ð pÀ ÐPC€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Oct.€6,€2000),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2001),€which€the€post„Ð \¬ Ðconviction€court€cited€in€its€Memorandum€Opinion.€€In€òòState€v.€Michael€Todd€Drinnonóó€(òòDrinnon€Ióó)Ô#†XZXXXZOw#ÔÔ‡XZXXXZÔ,Ð H˜ ÐNo.€03C01„9708„CR„00347€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€14,€1998),€the€defendant€wasÐ 4„ Ðconvicted€of€two€counts€of€evading€arrest€and€two€counts€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€thirdÐ  p Ðoffense.€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€2.€€He€received€an€effective€sentence€of€four€years,€and€afterwards€he€soughtÐ  \ Ðto€appeal€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€and€other€issues.€€òòId.óó€€Evidently,€the€trial€courtÐ øH Ðclerk€failed€to€include€the€exhibits€in€the€record€transmitted€for€appellate€review.€€As€a€result€theÐ ä4 Ðappellate€court€was€precluded€from€addressing€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€issue.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€atÐ Ð  Ð3.€€Other€issues€were€deemed€waived€on€appeal€due€to€inadequate€briefing.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€3,€5.€€InÐ ¼  ÐòòDrinnon€IIóó,€the€defendant€had€filed€for€post„conviction€relief,€had€been€granted€a€delayed€appeal,€andÐ ¨ø Ðhad€appealed€the€convictions€a€second€time.€€òòDrinnon,€IIóó,€slip€op.€at€4.€€Without€comment€as€to€theÐ ”ä Ðefficacy€of€the€delayed€appeal€grant,€this€court€adjudicated€the€appellate€issues€raised€in€òòDrinnon€IIóó.Ð €Ð ÐòòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€4.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€discern€that€the€methodology€of€post„conviction„enabled€delayed€appeals€hasÐ D!” Ðrecently€been,€and€perhaps€still€is,€evolving.€€Thus,€we€attribute€no€binding€significance€to€thisÐ 0"€  Ðcourtððs€failure€to€inquire€into€the€efficacy€of€the€delayed€appeal€in€òòDrinnonóó€òòII.óó€€We€believe€that€theÐ #l! Ðlater€opinion€in€òòKenneth€S.€Griffinóó€is€on€solid€ground€in€holding€that€the€post„conviction„enabledÐ $X" Ðdelayed€appeal€ð!ð€Griffinððs€second€direct€appeal€from€his€convictions€and/or€sentences€ð!ð€was€ð ðnotÐ ô$D # Ðproperly€before€this€court.ðð€€òòKenneth€S.€Griffinóó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àOf€course,€as€in€the€present€case,€Griffinððs€òòpost„conviction€proceedingóó,€which€resultedÐ ¸'#& Ðin€the€delayed€appeal€order,€was€not€before€the€òòKenneth€S.€Griffinóó€court.€€Nevertheless,€the€purportedÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdelayed€direct€appeal€evoked€questions€of€the€appellate€courtððs€jurisdiction€to€entertain€that€appealÐ )à$( Ðð ðwhen€[Griffin€had]€clearly€already€had€a€direct€appeal€heard€on€the€merits.ðð€€òòId.óó€€We€believe€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐòòKenneth€S.€Griffinóó€court€was€empowered€to€notice€the€prior€direct€appeal,€if€not€as€a€function€of€theÐ h+¸&* Ðlaw€of€the€case,€then€as€a€ð ðfactðð€of€which€it€had€institutional€knowledge.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€201(a)Ð ° Ð(addressing€judicial€notice€of€adjudicative€facts);€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Jeff€Crossóó,€No.€201€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð œì ÐApp.,€Knoxville,€June€26,€1986)€(court€may€take€judicial€notice€of€its€own€records).€Thus,€the€courtÐ ˆØ Ðessentially€determined€that€the€òòGriffinóó€post„conviction€court€exceeded€its€jurisdiction€in€awardingÐ tÄ ÐGriffin€a€second€direct€appeal,€resulting€in€the€grant€of€the€new€appeal€being€void€and€ineffectual.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€the€present€case,€as€in€òòKenneth€S.€Griffinóó,€no€appeal€was€ever€taken€from€the€post„Ð 8 ˆ Ðconviction€courtððs€order€granting€a€delayed€appeal.€€Had€the€state€timely€appealed€and€challengedÐ $ t Ðthe€courtððs€authority€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal,€appellate€jurisdiction€to€decide€that€question€wouldÐ  ` Ðexist.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„216€(1997)€(ð ðThe€order€granting€or€denying€relief€under€theÐ ü L  Ðprovisions€of€this€part€[which€include€the€delayed€appeal€provisions€in€section€40„30„213]€shall€beÐ è 8  Ðdeemed€a€final€judgment,€and€an€appeal€may€be€taken€to€the€court€of€criminal€appeals€in€the€mannerÐ Ô$  Ðprescribed€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.ðð).€€Although€we€have€expressed€the€viewÐ À  Ðthat€the€post„conviction€court€lacked€authority€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal,€the€post„conviction€case€isÐ ¬ü  Ðnot€before€us,€and€it€is€not€within€our€province€to€ð ðreverseðð€that€ruling.€€Nonetheless,€jurisdiction€toÐ ˜è  Ðhear€the€so„called€new„trial€issues€does€not€attach€simply€because€none€of€the€litigants€objectedÐ „Ô  Ðinitially€to€a€delayed€appeal.€€òòSee€State€v.€Wilkesóó,€684€S.W.2d€663,€667€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)Ð pÀ Ð(court€cannot€assume€jurisdiction€of€a€matter€upon€agreement€of€the€parties).€€Our€rules€simply€doÐ \¬ Ðnot€permit€free„standing€appeals€of€convictions€that€have€long€been€final.€€In€effect,€that€is€theÐ H˜ Ðsituation€with€which€we€are€confronted.€€Accordingly,€our€duty€is€clear;€the€appeal€must€be€andÐ 4„ Ðhereby€is€dismissed.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  p ÐÔ#†XZXXXZ£x#Ôà  àà ` àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àÔ‡XZXXXZÔÌÌò òó óà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ#†XZXXXZe#Ôà0À(#À(#à__________________________________€Ð¼ (#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE