ÿWPCV Ýz–àËÜÖ,õq:ýéüº:ñ®-O]`^´­zæ¹È²'B÷1[¸_&ÄOÄ…‚†Í4‹ÅOŸˆ-SÛwÿ(­q•WbÆmA’S¼„ øbnŠ9qFW|árÖh“Z^æ«ôÓ¯á¢q^†îRo”":þÉX3p)÷§'Gg6ØÅèĶ~Úax /(ÅùÕñ¶½ª-ÙRJÄ"o`®@WÊÈ]K…N^˜my’ vG¼}“ðäçPDµM¹·Ø_>ï>ëSöælµwðYÄÖá…ÔeDpr6mW{n¸c6w‹ ¼d!ó͆ bþÕ™ KIÓþéC¯™Ý£/™¥[¬7)Û¤@LŸKRÌ=ajÈÌcëúΡXô@-þЬì4)+hÙ x›¸(µœ1)-ØÂÒ$MÄk— 3£<³uibk”nìÚKoO[°WA3¶ÜlJìDc)È-ë=‰×¿rìrDjŽ*Xrñ{Äî‹Aï8ìŒWpàÈ#†Oš.Ûe¸¸*÷KŒ©OeríN‡ì¼µ¯ìÉ/(t*Po3’Gn‹#ÔÔ‡ X =XXX =ÔHowever,€ð ða€state€may€give€prisoners€the€assistance€of€counsel€withoutÐ D!” Ðrequiring€ððthe€full€panoply€of€procedural€protection€that€the€Constitution€requires€be€given€toÐ 0"€  Ðdefendants€who€are€in€a€fundamentally€different€position„„at€trial€and€on€first€appeal€as€of€right.ððððÔ#†X =XX X =†?#ÔÔ‡ X =XXX =ԀР#l! ÐòòHouse€v.€Stateóó,€911€S.W.2d€705,€712€(Tenn.€1995)€(quoting€òòFinleyóó,€481€U.S.€at€559).Ô#†X =XX X =A#ÔÔ‡ X =XXX =Ô€€Therefore,Ð $X" Ðbecause€there€is€no€constitutional€right€to€counsel€in€post„conviction€proceedings,€we€have€held€thatÐ ô$D # Ðð ðthere€is€no€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€post„conviction€proceedings.ððÐ à%0!$ ÐòòId.óó€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€likewise€held€that€the€Fourteenth€Amendmentððs€right€toÐ Ì&"% Ðcounsel,€and€therefore€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel,€only€applies€through€the€first€appealÐ ¸'#& Ðas€of€right.€€òòSeeóó€òòDouglas€v.€Californiaóó,€372€U.S.€353,€357€(1963).Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€òòHouseóó,€a€situation€arose€similar€to€that€in€the€case€under€submission,€in€that€the€defendantÐ |*Ì%) Ðfiled€a€second€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€claiming€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€withÐ h+¸&* Ðrespect€to€his€first€petition€for€post„conviction€relief.€€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€at€707.€€The€Court€ofÐ ° ÐCriminal€Appeals€held€that,€although€the€ineffectiveness€of€prior€post„conviction€counsel€was€notÐ œì Ða€ground€for€relief,€it€was€an€ð ðimportant€factorðð€in€determining€whether€a€second€post„convictionÐ ˆØ Ðclaim€was€barred€by€waiver€or€previous€determination.€€òòId.óó€at€708.€€We€disagreed:Ð tÄ ÐÌà8  àThere€being€no€constitutional€or€statutory€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€inÐ L œ Ðpost„conviction€proceedings,€a€court€should€not€consider€the€ineffectiveness€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðcounsel€at€a€prior€post„conviction€proceeding€in€deciding€whether€a€ground€for€reliefÐ $ t Ðhas€been€previously€determined.Ð `Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€712.€€We€specifically€held€that€a€claim€of€ineffective€assistance€of€post„conviction€counselÐ è 8  Ðcould€ð ðnot€establish€a€legal€excuse€for€failure€to€raise€issues€in€the€initial€proceeding.ðð€€òòId.óó€€If€a€claimÐ Ô$  Ðof€ineffective€assistance€of€post„conviction€counsel€does€not€establish€an€excuse€for€defendantððsÐ À  Ðfailure€to€raise€an€issue,€it€similarly€cannot€provide€an€excuse€for€a€defendantððs€failure€to€timely€fileÐ ¬ü  Ða€Rule€11€application.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌÔ#†X =XX X =¿A#Ôà  àDespite€there€being€no€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel€during€post„convictionÐ pÀ Ðproceedings,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€relied€upon€òòÔ‡ X =XXX =ÔBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.Ð \¬ Ð1992),€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€44€S.W.3d€464€(Tenn.€2001),Ô#†X =XX X =ºK#ÔÔ‡ X =XXX =Ô€òòState€v.€Brownóó,€653€S.W.2d€765,€767€(Tenn.Ð H˜ ÐCrim.€App.€1983),€andÔ#†X =XX X =vL#ÔÔ‡ X =XXX =Ô€òòState€v.€Hopsonóó,€589€S.W.2d€952,€954€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979),òòóó€Ô#†X =XX X =M#Ô€inÐ 4„ Ðconcluding€that€Stokes€was€denied€due€process€by€his€post„conviction€counselððs€failure€to€file€aÐ  p Ðtimely€Rule€11€application.€€Two€of€those€cases,€òòHopsonóó€and€òòBrownóó,€involve€situations€similar€toÐ  \ Ðthat€in€òòEvans,óó€in€that€appointed€counsel€failed€to€take€action€after€an€adverse€decision€on€òòdirectÐ øH Ðappealóó,€unilaterally€denying€the€defendant€the€right€to€second„tier€review.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ‡ X =XXX =ÔEvansóó,€108€S.W.3dÐ ä4 Ðat€234;€Ô#†X =XX X =ŽO#ÔÔ‡ X =XXX =ÔòòHopsonóó,€589€S.W.2d€at€954;€òòBrownóó,€653€S.W.2d€at€767Ô#†X =XX X =P#Ô.€€Neither€of€these€cases€addressedÐ Ð  Ðcounselððs€responsibility€following€a€post„conviction€appeal.€òòóóÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€remaining€cases,€òòBurfordóó€and€òòWilliamsóó,€likewise€do€not€support€the€decision€of€the€CourtÐ ”ä Ðof€Criminal€Appeals.€€In€both€cases,€we€held€that€due€process€considerations€outweighed€theÐ €Ð Ðgovernmentððs€interests€and€precluded€the€application€of€the€statute€of€limitations€to€bar€theÐ l¼ Ðpresentation€of€the€defendantððs€claims,€thus€giving€the€defendant€a€right€to€have€his€claim€heard€onÐ X ¨ Ðthe€merits.€€òòWilliamsóó,€44€S.W.3d€at€471€(holding€Ô‡ X =XXX =Ôthat€attorney€misrepresentation€may€toll€the€post„Ð D!” Ðconviction€statute€of€limitations€despite€the€presence€of€statutory€language€stating€that€the€statute€ofÐ 0"€  Ðlimitations€shall€not€be€tolled€for€any€reasonÔ#†X =XX X =7S#Ô);€òòBurfordóó,€845€S.W.2d€at€209€(allowing€the€tolling€ofÐ #l! Ðthe€post„conviction€statute€of€limitations€Ô‡ X =XXX =Ôwhere€the€petitioner€was€forced€to€wait€to€bring€his€post„Ð $X" Ðconviction€claim€until€underlying€convictions€were€declared€invalidÔ#†X =XX X =çT#Ô).Ð ô$D # Ðà  à€Ð à%0!$ Ðà  àIn€òòWilliamsóó,€misrepresentation€by€defendantððs€counsel€led€to€a€failure€to€file€an€applicationÐ Ì&"% Ðfor€permission€to€appeal€to€this€Court€following€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€onÐ ¸'#& Ðdirect€appeal.€€The€defendant€believed€that€the€case€had€been€pending€before€this€Court,€and€by€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtime€he€filed€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€his€petition€was€dismissed€as€time„barred.€€We€heldÐ )à$( Ðthat€if€the€defendant€was€under€the€impression€that€a€Rule€11€application€was€pending,€he€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðeffectively€precluded€from€filing€a€timely€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€and€that€the€attorneyððsÐ h+¸&* Ðmisrepresentation€and€failure€to€withdraw€as€counsel€warranted€a€tolling€of€the€statute€of€limitations.€Ð ° ÐòòWilliamsóó,€44€S.W.3d€at€471.Ð œì ÐÌà  àIn€òòWilliamsóó,€unlike€this€case,€the€attorneyððs€ineffective€assistance€occurred€on€direct€appeal,Ð tÄ Ðand€not€during€the€post„conviction€process.€€Counselððs€actions€precluded€Williams€from€even€filingÐ `° Ða€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€and€having€his€claims€heard€on€the€merits.€€In€that€decision€weÐ L œ Ðstressed€the€importance€of€allowing€the€petitioner€to€bring€a€collateral€attack€against€his€convictions:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  àTo€summarily€terminate€his€claim€without€further€inquiry€would€be€an€ð ðabridgementÐ  ` Ðof€both€direct€and€post„conviction€avenues€of€appeal€ð!ð€without€ever€reaching€theÐ ü L  Ðmerits€of€the€appell[ee]ððs€case€ð!ð€[and]€would€be€patently€unfair.ððÐè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€€All€that€due€process€requires€in€the€post„conviction€setting€is€Ô‡ X =XXX =Ôthat€the€defendant€haveð ðððtheÐ À  Ðòòopportunityóó€to€be€heard€at€a€meaningful€time€and€in€a€meaningful€manner.ðððð€€òòHouseóó,€911€S.W.2d€atÐ ¬ü  Ð711€(quoting€òòÔ#†X =XX X =]#ÔMathews€v.€Eldridgeóó,€424€U.S.€319,€333€(1976)).€€€In€this€case,€Stokes€is€not€beingÐ ˜è  Ðdenied€the€right€to€present€his€post„conviction€claim.€€In€fact,€his€post„conviction€claim€has€beenÐ „Ô  Ðheard€and€rejected€by€two€different€courts.€Ð pÀ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓCONCLUSIONó óÐ H˜ ÐÓQ_ÓÌà  àIn€summary,€we€find€that€the€petitioner€was€not€denied€due€process€by€his€post„convictionÐ  p Ðcounselððs€failure€to€either€withdraw€as€counsel€or€file€an€application€for€permission€to€appeal€afterÐ  \ Ðthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€upheld€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€post„conviction€relief.€€It€has€beenÐ øH Ðwell€established€that€petitioners€do€not€have€a€constitutional€right€to€effective€assistance€of€counsel,Ð ä4 Ðand€that€all€due€process€requires€during€post„convictions€procedures€is€a€meaningful€opportunity€toÐ Ð  Ðbe€heard.€€Here,€the€petitioner€was€afforded€a€full€evidentiary€hearing€and€full€review€in€his€first„tierÐ ¼  Ðpost„conviction€appeal.€€Therefore,€there€was€no€due€process€violation.€€As€such,€the€decision€of€theÐ ¨ø ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€reversed.€€Ð ”ä ÐÌà  àBecause€it€appears€to€the€Court€that€the€petitioner,€Anthony€Jerome€Stokes,€is€indigent,€theÐ l¼ Ðcosts€of€the€appeal€will€be€paid€by€the€State€of€Tennessee.Ð X ¨ ÐÔ‡ X =XXX =Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICEÔ#†X =XX X =üc#ÔÔ#†¼E»XX =4-#Ô