ÿWPC + GžRTâ´¤‘¹áŽbÈ¡À¬—v²Å"ÔQ¨~Ûa®‘»áŒÚHcgÚ ^&]v(¤ÍÅ¥žË h!×ùx²Ø”……Fºüüç 3¬!ç}'­ ë.mÒø€aGSsíšC´ǹ3R%TD¯Nîd5ëDzz @cŒé2þø½ˆIkŸçEÂþlº6ĉ ݺÞe&•Ïâ"ÏÂú¯j‚6¸ˆ÷9Tgž·ï³]d¬ Šòí Íì±ûìÚ‰Þ2¯6 øªY­Ñwäw…„ÐSïÖöæ}Ãжà‡²-d``·³¹@D³sEO¦¶.¬ˆbµuú¿¥r3AWe7s–ñÐo"s¨åK”¿†ˆûË®ó´!²×ó™}ª QýÜ„ö×±é¡0—ÔÃSø’KšE|bWÊ„·Dt]o2ƒÖhG¯•>ˆ%³jƒ¹Ÿ{ÙÅls ž€‘ÿuÞ­?½:ÂIë–§Ýr¯b‰˜@'_$¬.¿ˆÀ.D˜ÙÆ>àÚU‰ãÜŽÍP1¿–Ær¥ é¸Ð_ø†P j! "¢G ÂRÔºÔ*xYOÙxgõôàM–î'L9’wä‹ÒPýO `ûÛÈ*5KªD jëT _ï˜ÐdÂxÇ I0C%è$¶UÅÃlìb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ ¹ #ÉÐ Æ™ Æ_ Æ%ÆëUN±Nÿ 0DTEE™™›h±:çSSÎ:ÀéÈP±#!Û$#$#$#$#$#$#$#bÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ%ÿ% 0 ë&&&& Bò&ò& 0¤' D3³' D-æ' 0K(( AS^(Ʊ( 0¤w) 0D* A«_*»ã~—/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢×+003|x ˜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.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó CronicStrickland postconvictionDrowotaAdolphoFindleyAlsobrooksMelindaBurkhartNichols TaitOvertonunwaivedPegueroW]hen t]he Ñ ° Ñ ^Ý ƒRî$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Though€the€defendantððs€first€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€a€new€trial€and€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€filed€by€trial€counselÐ ° Ðare€not€contained€in€the€record,€there€is€no€dispute€that€the€motions€were€filed. 0Ý ƒRî$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€òòState€v.€Burkhartóó,€541€S.W.2d€365,€371€(Tenn.€1976)€(holding€that€a€defendant€may€not€proceed€òòpro€seóó€whenÐ ° Ðsimultaneously€represented€by€counsel). ÝÔ_ÔÔ‡ô¬•ò»»ÔÝ ƒRîÿÝÑÀ.ÑÑ8À­»»dd8ÑÑ @ý ÑÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬•òòô¬•ÔÝ  Ý€For€a€detailed€recitation€of€the€substantive€facts€in€this€case,€refer€to€òòState€v.€Wallaceóó,€No.€01C01„9711„CC„Ð ° Ð00526,€1998€WL€670627€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Sept.€30,€1998),€the€defendantððs€initial€direct€appeal. ÄÔ_ÔÔ‡ô¬•ò»»ÔÝ ƒRîÿÝÑÀ.ÑÑ8À­»»dd8ÑÑ @ý ÑÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬•òòô¬•ÔÝ  Ý€Pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€3(e),€issues€not€specifically€raised€in€a€timely€motion€forÐ ° Ða€new€trial,€other€than€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€are€not€reviewed€on€appeal. ¶Ý ƒRî$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€Among€other€contentions,€the€State€maintained€that€it€provided€trial€counsel€complete€access€to€its€files,€andÐ ° Ðas€such,€it€satisfied€the€requirements€of€òòBrady€v.€Marylandóó,€373€U.S.€83€(1963).€€The€trial€court€agreed€and€determinedÐ tÄ Ðthat€this€issue€was€without€merit. ßÝ ƒRî$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬•ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€The€Stateððs€reliance€on€the€unpublished€case€of€òòState€v.€Griffinóó,×Ã%×× C ×€No.€E2000„02471„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WLÐ ° Ð710178€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€25,€2001),€which€was€also€relied€upon€by€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€òòóóis€misplaced.€Ð tÄ ÐIn€òòGriffinóó,€a€petitioner×Ã&×× C ×€sought€a€delayed€appeal€on€the€basis€that€òòóócounsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€include€certainÐ 8ˆ Ðissues€in€the€direct€appeal.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€there€was€no€evidence€of€actual€prejudice€toÐ üL Ðthat€petitioner€under€òòStricklandóó€and€upheld€the€denial€of€a€delayed€appeal.€€The€decision€in€òòGriffinóó€is€distinguishable€fromÐ À Ðthe€present€case,€however,€in€that€the€petitionerððs€counsel€in€that€case€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial×Ã',×× C ×€and€did€not€completelyÐ „Ô Ðfail€to€subject€the€State€to€any€direct€appellate€scrutiny.€€In€contrast,€Wallaceððs€counsel€completely€failed€to€file€a€motionÐ H ˜ Ðfor€new€trial,€move€to€withdraw€as€counsel,€or€otherwise€preserve€appellate€review€of€the€defendantððs€conviction.€€AsÐ  \ Ðsuch,€trial€counselððs€performance€was€presumptively€prejudicial€under€the€reasoning€in€òòCronicóó€and€òòFlores„Ortegaóó. FÝ ƒRŒ;$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ‡ôúåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòState€v.€Griffinóó,€Ô‡ô„òòôúåÔNo.€E2000-02471-CCA-R3-CD,€2001€WL€710178€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€June€25,Ð ° Ð2001)Ô#†ôúåòòô„–#Ô. Ý ƒRŒ;$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÔ‡ôúåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€refer€to€the€criminal€defendant€in€òòGriffinóó€as€ð ðpetitionerðð€rather€than€ð ðdefendantðð€because€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðdenied€that€partyððs€petition€for€a€delayed€appeal.€€In€the€instant€case,€Mr.€Wallace€is€currently€pursuing€a€direct€appealÐ tÄ Ðfollowing€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€delayed€appeal.€€Therefore,€he€is€appropriately€termed,€ð ðdefendant.ðð ÑÝ ƒRŒ;$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÔ‡ôúåò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThat€trial€counsel€in€òòGriffinóó€filed€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€is€not€explicitly€stated€in€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ° ÐAppealsðð€decision.€€However,€the€court€infers€as€much€by€commenting€that€counsel€did€not€raise€certain€issues€on€appeal.€Ð tÄ ÐSince€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€made€no€mention€that€such€issues€were€waived€for€some€procedural€error€on€theÐ 8ˆ Ðpart€of€that€petitionerððs€counsel,€we€presume€that€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€timely€filed€in€that€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòGriffinóó,€2001Ð üL ÐWL€710178,€at€*2.- ù-(|G2î$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¬•ò»»Ô d(|3þï$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€­»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3þï$¢¢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€I!XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€OY Ñò òòòà@™ ™ ìàòòóóó óóóà@@™ ™ ìàÔ‡îÌ­ÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼­»îîÌA#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€1,€2003€SessionÐ üL Ðò òÌÌDONALD€WALLACE€v.€STATE€OF€TENNESSEEÔ‡XI!X»¼­Ôó óÐ 6 † Ðà@@½½ìàò òÌÌAn€Appeal€by€Permission€from€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ " r ÐCircuit€Court€for€Stewart€CountyÐ ^  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€4„769„CR„96€€€€€€Robert€E.€Burch,€JudgeÐ úJ  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02722„SC„R11„PC€„€Filed€December€23,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼­»XXI!O#ÔÌÔ€XI!X»¼­ÔWe€granted€this€appeal€to€determine€whether€the€trial€court€properly€granted€the€defendant€post„Ð žî Ðconviction€relief€in€the€form€of€a€delayed€direct€appeal€on€the€ground€that€counselððs€failure€to€file€aÐ ŠÚ Ðmotion€for€new€trial€resulted€in€the€waiver€of€all€issues€on€direct€appeal€except€for€sufficiency€of€theÐ vÆ Ðevidence.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€dismissed€the€appeal€after€concluding€that€the€trial€courtÐ b² Ðlacked€the€statutory€authority€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal€and€that€the€defendant€had€not€suffered€anyÐ Nž Ðprejudice€from€counselððs€performance.€€After€reviewing€the€record€and€applicable€authority,€weÐ :Š Ðconclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€granted€a€delayed€appeal€based€upon€ineffective€assistance€ofÐ &v Ðcounsel.€€We€therefore€reverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals,€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€aÐ b Ðdelayed€appeal,€and€remand€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€for€review€of€the€issues€presented€byÐ þN Ðthe€defendantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial.Ð ê: ÐÌÌÓ³Óò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€€Appeal€by€Permission;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÐ ®!þ  ÐReversed;€Case€Remanded€to€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsó óÐ š"ê! ÐòòÓ  ÓÌÌE.€Riley€Anderson,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòò€Frank€F.€Drowota,€III,€C.J.,Ð ^%® $ Ðóóandòò€Adolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Janice€M.€Holder,óó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barker,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð J&š!% ÐÌRichard€McGee€and€James€O.€Martin,€III,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Donald€Wallace.Ð "(r#' ÐÌMichael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€David€H.€Findley,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€DanÐ ú)J%) ÐAlsobrooks,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Robert€S.€Wilson,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð æ*6&* Ðfor€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ò+"'+ ÐÓR ÓÐ  ¾,(,ý ÐÔ_Ôà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ ° ÐÌò òBACKGROUNDó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àIn€September€of€1999,€the€defendant,€Donald€Wallace,€filed€a€post„conviction€petitionÐ `° Ðseeking€to€obtain€a€delayed€direct€appeal€of€his€1996€conviction.€€Our€factual€summary€is€taken€fromÐ L œ Ðthe€post„conviction€proceedings.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWallace€was€indicted€for€first€degree€murder€in€the€1996€killing€of€Melinda€Sue€Perrin.€Ð  ` ÐWallace€retained€counsel€and€executed€an€agreement€explicitly€stating€that€trial€counsel€would€beÐ ü L  Ðresponsible€only€for€representation€at€trial€and€would€not€be€responsible€for€handling€any€potentialÐ è 8  Ðappeals.€€Wallace€was€convicted€of€first€degree€murder€by€a€jury,€and€the€trial€court€entered€aÐ Ô$  Ðjudgment€of€conviction€on€January€31,€1997.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAfter€the€conviction,€trial€counsel€sent€Wallace€a€letter€instructing€him€how€to€prepare€aÐ ˜è  Ðmotion€for€new€trial€and€what€legal€issues€should€be€raised€but€did€not€obtain€court€approval€toÐ „Ô  Ðwithdraw€as€attorney€of€record.€€Wallace€filed€a€timely€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€new€trial€on€February€6,Ð pÀ Ð1997.€€Because€trial€counsel€had€failed€to€withdraw,€however,€the€trial€court€refused€to€consider€theÐ \¬ Ðòòpro€seóó€motion.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€On€May20,€1997,€trial€counsel€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial,€and€on€May€28,€1997,Ð H˜ ÐWallace€filed€a€second€òòpro€seóó€motion€for€new€trial,€alleging€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€toÐ 4„ Ðsupport€the€juryððs€verdict,€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€admitting€hearsay€evidence€and€other€evidence,Ð  p Ðand€that€the€trial€judge€made€inappropriate€comments€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.׃h×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€trial€courtÐ  \ Ðgranted€trial€counselððs€motion€to€be€relieved€from€representing€the€defendant,€but€did€not€grant€eitherÐ øH Ðof€the€two€late„filed€motions€for€new€trial.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àOn€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€because€no€timely€motion€for€newÐ ¼  Ðtrial€had€been€filed,€all€issues€were€waived€on€appeal€except€for€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¨ø ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(e).׃¸×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€appellate€court€held€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€support€firstÐ ”ä Ðdegree€murder,€and€it€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€re„sentencing€for€second€degree€murder.€€UponÐ €Ð Ðremand,€the€trial€court€sentenced€Wallace€to€twenty„five€years€for€second€degree€murder.€€WallaceÐ l¼ Ðappealed€this€re„sentencing,€which€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.€€Ð X ¨ Ðâ âÐ D!” Ðà  àIn€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief,€Wallace,€now€represented€by€new€counsel,€alleged€thatÐ ° Ðâ âhis€original€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€file€a€timely€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€petitionÐ œì Ðalleged€that€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€in€his€original€trial€because€the€trial€court€allowed€the€StateÐ ˆØ Ðto€present€inadmissible€hearsay€evidence€that€the€victim€had€previously€stated€that€she€was€afraid€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant,€which€directly€contradicted€evidence€presented€by€the€defendant€that€the€victim€hadÐ `° Ðbeen€treated€kindly€by€the€defendant.€€The€petition€further€alleged€that€the€State€withheld€exculpatoryÐ L œ Ðevidence€as€to€the€victimððs€state€of€mind€prior€to€trial€and€that€the€prosecution€had€in€its€possessionÐ 8 ˆ Ða€Tennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation€agentððs€report€that€would€have€provided€a€basis€to€impeach€theÐ $ t Ðprejudicial€hearsay€testimony.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIn€a€hearing€on€the€petition,€Wallace€argued€that€these€errors€were€prejudicial€and€providedÐ è 8  Ðsufficient€grounds€for€a€delayed€appeal€and€a€new€trial.€€The€post„conviction€trial€court€found€thatÐ Ô$  ÐWallace€had€been€denied€his€direct€appeal€of€these€issues€due€to€the€ineffectiveness€of€counsel€inÐ À  Ðfailing€to€file€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€€The€trial€court€granted€a€delayed€appeal,€allowed€the€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðto€file€a€motion€for€new€trial,€and€then€denied€the€motion.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€dismissedÐ ˜è  Ðthe€delayed€appeal,€however,€concluding€that€Wallace€had€received€a€direct€appeal,€though€only€onÐ „Ô  Ðthe€issue€of€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€The€appellate€court€concluded€that€the€defendant€hadÐ pÀ Ðnot€been€prejudiced€and€that€the€trial€court€lacked€the€authority€to€grant€a€delayed€appeal.€€€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWe€granted€the€defendantððs€application€for€permission€to€appeal.€€Ð 4„ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓSTANDARD€OF€REVIEWó óÐ  \ ÐÓ+"ÓÌà  àSince€this€case€arises€from€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act,€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ ä4 Ðsection€40„30„101,€òòet€seq.óó€(2003),€the€defendant€is€required€to€prove€the€allegation€contained€in€hisÐ Ð  Ðpetition€by€clear€and€convincing€evidence.€€òòNichols€v.€Stateóó,€90€S.W.3d€576,€586€(Tenn.€2002).€€AÐ ¼  Ðtrial€courtððs€factual€findings€shall€not€be€disturbed€unless€the€evidence€in€the€record€preponderatesÐ ¨ø Ðagainst€them.€€òòId.óó€€Determinations€of€whether€counsel€provided€a€defendant€constitutionally€deficientÐ ”ä Ðassistance€present€mixed€questions€of€law€and€fact.€€òòId.óó.€€As€such,€our€review€is€de€novo,€and€weÐ €Ð Ðaccord€the€conclusions€reached€below€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòId.óóÐ l¼ ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€based€its€opinion€largely€upon€its€interpretationÐ D!” Ðof€the€statutory€law€applicable€to€delayed€direct€appeals.€€Statutory€interpretation€presents€a€questionÐ 0"€  Ðof€law,€which€we€review€de€novo,€according€the€conclusions€reached€below€no€presumption€ofÐ #l! Ðcorrectness.€€òòState€v.€Taitóó,€114€S.W.3d€518,€521€(Tenn.€2003).Ð $X" ÐÌÐ  à%0!$ Ðò òÓ  ÓANALYSISó óÐ ° ÐÓŸ'ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€properly€granted€a€delayed€appeal€under€the€factsÐ ˆØ Ðof€this€case€and€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€by€reversing€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€andÐ tÄ Ðdismissing€the€appeal.€€The€defendant€requests€a€new€trial€or€a€remand€to€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ `° ÐAppeals€to€address€the€issues€raised€in€his€delayed€motion€for€new€trial.€€The€State€contends€that€theÐ L œ ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€correctly€dismissed€the€appeal.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€analysis€by€reviewing€when€a€defendant€may€obtain€a€delayed€appeal€as€setÐ  ` Ðforth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„113€(2003):Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(a)€€When€the€trial€judge€conducting€a€hearing€pursuant€to€thisÐ Ô$  Ðpart€finds€that€the€petitioner€was€òòdenied€the€right€to€an€appeal€fromÐ À  Ðthe€original€conviction€in€violation€of€the€Constitution€of€the€UnitedÐ ¬ü  ÐStates€or€the€Constitution€of€Tennesseeóó€and€that€there€is€an€adequateÐ ˜è  Ðrecord€of€the€original€trial€proceeding€available€for€such€review,€theÐ „Ô  Ðjudge€can:€ÐpÀ` x` x ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ à(1)€€[G]rant€a€delayed€appeal;€or€Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óà8 @ àà8@` Ð Ð à*€€€*€€€*Ð  p ÐÌÓR-Óà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ à(3)€€If€no€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€filed€in€the€à8@¬` x` xàoriginal€proceeding,€authorize€such€motion€to€be€made€before€the€original€trial€court€within€thirtyÐ øH Ð(30)€days.€€Such€motion€shall€be€disposed€of€by€the€original€trial€court€as€if€the€motion€had€been€filedÐ ä4 Ðunder€authority€of€Rule€59€of€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.Ð Ð  ÐÌÌ(Emphasis€added).€€Similarly,€Tennessee€Code€Annotation€section€40„30„111(a)€provides,€in€part:Ð ”ä ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIf€the€court€finds€that€there€was€such€a€denial€or€infringement€of€theÐ l¼ Ðrights€of€the€prisoner€as€to€render€the€judgment€void€or€voidable,Ð X ¨ Ðincluding€a€finding€that€trial€counsel€was€ineffective€on€direct€appeal,Ð D!” Ðthe€court€shall€vacate€and€set€aside€the€judgment€or€order€a€delayedÐ 0"€  Ðappeal€as€provided€in€this€part€and€shall€enter€an€appropriate€order.Ð#l!` x` x ÐÌÌà  àAccordingly,€these€statutes€clearly€indicate€that€a€defendant€may€receive€a€delayed€appealÐ à%0!$ Ðwhere€there€has€been€a€denial€of€the€effective€assistance€of€counsel€in€violation€of€the€SixthÐ Ì&"% ÐAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€article€I,€section€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€Ð ¸'#& ÐIn€determining€whether€a€defendant€has€been€denied€the€constitutional€right€to€effective€counsel,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðcourts€apply€a€two-pronged€test.€€òòStrickland€v.€Washingtonóó,€466€U.S.€668,€688€(1984);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòStateÐ )à$( Ðv.€Burnsóó,€6€S.W.3d€459,€461€(Tenn.€1999).Ð |*Ì%) ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àFirst,€a€defendant€must€prove€that€counsel€was€ineffective€by€showing€errors€made€by€counselÐ ° Ðthat€caused€the€assistance€of€counsel€to€fall€below€prevailing€professional€norms.€€òòStricklandóó,€466Ð œì ÐU.S.€at€687.€€In€making€this€assessment,€however,€courts€must€be€deferential€to€the€tactical€decisionsÐ ˆØ Ðof€counsel€and€must€not€base€assessments€on€a€lawyerððs€competence€from€the€clear€perspective€ofÐ tÄ Ðhindsight.€€òòId.óó€at€689.Ð `° ÐÌà  àSecond,€upon€establishing€that€counsel€was€deficient,€the€petitioner€must€establish€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðreasonable€probability€that€the€outcome€of€the€trial€would€have€been€different€but€for€the€deficienciesÐ $ t Ðof€counsel.€€òòStricklandóó,€466€U.S.€at€687,€694.€€Although€this€second€prong€of€the€òòStricklandóó€analysisÐ  ` Ðis€commonly€referred€to€as€ð ðactual€prejudice,ðð€òòsee,€e.g.óó,€òòOverton€v.€Stateóó,€874€S.W.2d€6,€11€(Tenn.Ð ü L  Ð1994),€there€is€a€small€category€of€cases€in€which€actual€prejudice€need€not€be€shown.€€òòSeeóóòòUnitedÐ è 8  ÐStates€v.€Cronicóó,€466€U.S.€648€(1984).€€In€òòCronicóó,€for€example,€which€was€decided€on€the€same€dayÐ Ô$  Ðas€òòStricklandóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€stated€that€there€are€situations€where€counselððsÐ À  Ðperformance€is€so€deficient€that€it€becomes€presumptively€prejudicial.€€òòCronicóó,€466€U.S.€at€658.€€InÐ ¬ü  Ðcomparing€this€level€of€ineffective€counsel€to€the€complete€denial€of€counsel,€the€Court€concludedÐ ˜è  Ðthat€when€ð ðcounsel€entirely€fails€to€subject€the€prosecutionððs€case€to€meaningful€adversarial€testing,ððÐ „Ô  Ðthe€process€becomes€ð ðpresumptively€unreliableðð€and€proof€of€actual€prejudice€is€not€required.€€òòId.óóÐ pÀ Ðat€659.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€first€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€we€conclude€that€counselððs€failure€to€file€a€timelyÐ 4„ Ðmotion€for€new€trial,€as€well€as€his€failure€to€withdraw€so€as€to€allow€the€defendant€to€file€a€òòpro€seóóÐ  p Ðmotion€for€€new€trial,€was€deficient.€€Indeed,€counselððs€failure€to€take€any€timely€action€followingÐ  \ Ðtrial€created€a€Catch„22€predicament€ð!ð€Wallace€had€counsel€in€name€only,€who€failed€to€preserveÐ øH ÐWallaceððs€post„trial€and€appellate€remedies,€yet€having€that€counsel€also€prevented€him€fromÐ ä4 Ðproceeding€in€a€òòpro€seóó€fashion€to€preserve€his€remedies.€€In€short,€counselððs€performance€clearly€fellÐ Ð  Ðbelow€the€established€professional€norms.€€We€are€also€of€the€opinion€that€trial€counselððs€failure€toÐ ¼  Ðfile€a€timely€motion€for€new€trial,€despite€the€clear€desire€of€the€defendant€to€do€so,€constitutesÐ ¨ø Ðdeficient€performance€notwithstanding€the€retainer€agreement€that€purported€to€limit€counselððsÐ ”ä Ðrepresentation€to€trial€work.€€Taking€necessary€steps€to€preserve€post„trial€remedies,€including€theÐ €Ð Ðfiling€of€a€motion€for€new€trial,€are€clearly€responsibilities€of€counsel:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àà ¸ àDuties€of€Counsel€Regarding€Appeal.€ð!ð€€An€attorney€retainedÐ D!” Ðby€the€defendant€to€represent€the€defendant€for€the€trial,€and€not€uponÐ 0"€  Ðappeal,€shall€timely€advise€the€trial€court€of€this€fact€at€the€hearing€onÐ #l! Ðthe€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Thereupon,€such€counsel€will€be€permittedÐ $X" Ðto€withdraw€as€counsel€of€record.Ðô$D #` x` x Ѐ€Ð à%0!$ ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(e).Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€second€prong€of€òòStricklandóó,€we€note€first€that€the€Court€of€CriminalÐ ¤(ô#' ÐAppeals€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€not€prejudiced€because€he€had€the€benefit€of€a€directÐ )à$( Ðappeal€on€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€and€thus€was€not€entitled€to€a€delayed€direct€appealÐ |*Ì%) Ðunder€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„13„113.€€The€court€reasoned:€Ð h+¸&* Їà8  àà8` Ð Ð àwe€[do€not]€see€an€applicable€constitutional€imperative€for€allowingÐ ° Ðthe€second€appeal€in€the€absence€of€a€showing€of€prejudice.€€To€obtainÐ œì Ðpost„conviction€relief,€the€[defendant]€needed€to€demonstrateÐ ˆØ Ðineffective€assistance€of€counsel€ð!ð€that€is,€both€deficient€performanceÐ tÄ Ðand€actual€prejudice€in€the€sense€that€had€specific€issues€beenÐ `° Ðincluded€in€a€new„trial€motion€and€addressed€on€appeal,€they€wouldÐ L œ Ðhave€resulted€in€a€new€trial€or€other€appropriate€relief.Ð8 ˆ` x` x ÐÌà  àWe€disagree€that€the€prejudice€prong€of€the€analysis€can€be€resolved€simply€by€reasoning€thatÐ  ` ÐWallace€had€direct€review€on€the€issue€of€sufficiency€of€evidence€alone.€€Nothing€in€the€statutoryÐ ü L  Ðlanguage€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„30„113€specifically€limits€the€trial€courtððsÐ è 8  Ðdiscretion€to€order€a€delayed€direct€appeal€to€circumstances€where€there€was€a€complete€denial€of€aÐ Ô$  Ðdirect€appeal.€€Indeed,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€reasoning€would€eliminate€the€remedy€of€aÐ À  Ðdelayed€appeal€in€all€cases€in€which€counsel€completely€fails€to€preserve€post„trial€and€appellateÐ ¬ü  Ðreview€of€any€issues€other€than€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€We€cannot€dispose€of€the€issue€ofÐ ˜è  Ðwhether€the€defendant€was€unconstitutionally€denied€a€direct€appeal€based€solely€upon€aÐ „Ô  Ðdetermination€that€there€was€appellate€review€of€one€unwaived€issue.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€likewise€disagree€with€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€conclusion€that€the€defendant€isÐ H˜ Ðrequired€to€demonstrate€actual€prejudice€from€counselððs€deficient€performance.€€Counsel€failed€toÐ 4„ Ðfile€a€timely€motion€for€new€trial€or,€at€the€very€least,€a€motion€to€withdraw€as€counsel€so€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€could€file€a€proper€and€timely€òòpro€seóó€motion.€€Counselððs€abandonment€of€his€client€at€suchÐ  \ Ða€critical€stage€of€the€proceedings€resulted€in€the€failure€to€preserve€and€pursue€the€available€post„Ð øH Ðtrial€remedies€and€the€complete€failure€to€subject€the€State€to€the€adversarial€appellate€process.€€òòSeeóóÐ ä4 ÐòòCronicóó,€466€U.S.€at€659.€€Counselððs€deficient€performance€was,€therefore,€presumptively€prejudicialÐ Ð  Ðand€supported€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€delayed€appeal€under€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ ¼  Ð40„30„113.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€reaching€this€conclusion,€we€observe€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€indicatedÐ €Ð Ðthat€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel€can€result€in€ð ðthe€forfeiture€of€a€proceeding€[such€as€a€directÐ l¼ Ðappeal]€itself.ðð€€òòRoe€v.€Flores„Ortegaóó,€528€U.S.€470,€483€(2000).€€In€òòFlores„Ortegaóó,€a€federal€habeasÐ X ¨ Ðcorpus€case,€the€petitioner€complained€that€his€trial€counsel€failed€to€file€a€notice€of€appeal,Ð D!” Ðapparently€barring€the€petitionerððs€appeal.€€òòId.óó€at€474.€€The€Court€observed:Ð 0"€  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àWe€have€long€held€that€a€lawyer€who€disregards€specific€instructionsÐ $X" Ðfrom€the€defendant€to€file€a€notice€of€appeal€acts€in€a€manner€that€isÐ ô$D # Ðprofessionally€unreasonable.€òòSeeóó€òòRodriquez€v.€United€Statesóó,€395Ð à%0!$ ÐU.S.€327€(1969);€òòcf.óó€òòPeguero€v.€United€Statesóó,€526€U.S.€23,€28€(1999)Ð Ì&"% Ð(ð ð[W]hen€counsel€fails€to€file€a€requested€appeal,€a€defendant€isÐ ¸'#& Ðentitled€to€[a€new]€appeal€without€showing€that€his€appeal€wouldÐ ¤(ô#' Ðlikely€have€had€meritðð).€€This€is€so€because€a€defendant€who€instructsÐ )à$( Ðcounsel€to€initiate€an€appeal€reasonably€relies€upon€counsel€to€file€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðnecessary€notice.Ðh+¸&*` x` x ЇòòFlores„Ortegaóó,€528€U.S.€at€477€(parallel€citations€in€original€omitted)€(bracketing€in€original).€€TheÐ ° ÐCourt€also€commented€that€its€holding€was€supported€by€òòCronicóó:€that€the€complete€denial€of€counselÐ œì Ðduring€a€critical€stage€of€judicial€proceedings€renders€those€proceedings€ð ðpresumptively€unreliable.ðð€Ð ˆØ ÐòòId.óó€at€483€(citing€òòCronicóó,€466€U.S.€at€659).€€Accordingly,€the€Court€held€that€ð ðto€show€prejudice,€...€Ð tÄ Ða€defendant€must€demonstrate€that€there€is€a€reasonable€probability€that,€but€for€counselððs€deficientÐ `° Ðfailure€to€consult€with€him€about€an€appeal,€he€would€have€timely€appealed.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€484.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àOther€states€have€followed€the€rationale€of€òòFlores„Ortegaóó€and€òòCronicóó.€€In€òòState€v.€Trotteróó,€609Ð $ t ÐN.W.2d€33€(Neb.€2000),€the€Supreme€Court€of€Nebraska€held:Ð  ` ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àthat€after€a€trial,€conviction,€and€sentencing,€if€counsel€deficientlyÐ è 8  Ðfails€to€file€or€perfect€an€appeal€after€being€so€directed€by€the€criminalÐ Ô$  Ðdefendant,€prejudice€will€be€presumed€and€counsel€will€be€deemedÐ À  Ðineffective,€thus€entitling€the€defendant€to€postconviction€relief.Ьü ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€41.€€We€find€the€reasoning€of€these€courts€persuasive.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòPeople€v.€Edwardsóó,€757€N.E.2dÐ „Ô  Ð442€(Ill.€2001);€òòState€v.€Rogersóó,€32€P.3d€724€(Mont.€2001);€òòState€v.€Wickeróó,€20€P.3d€1007€(Wash.Ð pÀ ÐCt.€App.€2001)òòóó.òòóóÐ \¬ ÐÌà  àAs€these€courts€have€recognized,€the€key€issue€is€the€failure€of€trial€counsel€to€file€theÐ 4„ Ðspecified€pleading€resulting€in€the€defendant€being€deprived€of€complete€appellate€review€on€directÐ  p Ðappeal.€€In€òòEdwardsóó,€the€Supreme€Court€of€Illinois€held€that€if€trial€counsel€fails€to€file€motions€toÐ  \ Ðwithdraw€a€guilty€plea€and€to€appeal,€despite€the€petitionerððs€desire€to€do€so,€counselððs€assistanceÐ øH Ðwould€be€constitutionally€ineffective.€€757€N.E.2d€at€452„53.€€In€òòWickeróó,€the€Court€of€Appeals€ofÐ ä4 ÐWashington€held€ð ðthat€an€attorneyððs€failure€to€file€a€requested€notice€of€appeal€is€ððprofessionallyÐ Ð  Ðunreasonableðððð€and€that€ð ð[t]he€defendant€need€not€make€any€additional€showing€of€prejudice.ðð€€20Ð ¼  ÐP.3d€at€1009.€€These€state€court€cases,€citing€òòFlores„Ortegaóó€and€òòCronicóó,€emphasized€that€trialÐ ¨ø Ðcounselððs€failure€to€file€motions€to€preserve€appeals€amounted€to€ineffective€assistance,€rendered€theÐ ”ä Ðrelated€proceedings€ð ðpresumptively€unreliable,ðð€and€raised€a€presumption€of€prejudice€to€theÐ €Ð Ðdefendants.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòRogersóó,€32€P.3d€at€729€(adopting€in€dicta€the€rule€of€òòFlores„Ortegaóó€in€a€caseÐ l¼ Ðwhere€a€defendant€would€have€appealed€but€for€counselððs€ineffectiveness).Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€òòFlores„Ortegaóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€rejected€a€òòper€seóó€rule€that€would€presumeÐ 0"€  Ðprejudice€whenever€trial€counsel,€without€the€explicit€direction€of€the€client,€failed€to€file€a€noticeÐ #l! Ðof€appeal,€and€instead€required€proof€that€the€defendant€would€have€appealed.€€òòId.óó€at€480.€€WeÐ $X" Ðlikewise€decline€to€adopt€a€òòper€seóó€rule€regarding€a€trial€counselððs€failure€to€file€a€motion€for€new€trial;Ð ô$D # Ðinstead,€a€petitioner€in€a€post„conviction€proceeding€must€establish€that€he€or€she€intended€to€file€aÐ à%0!$ Ðmotion€for€new€trial€and€that€but€for€the€deficient€representation€of€counsel,€a€motion€for€new€trialÐ Ì&"% Ðwould€have€been€filed€raising€issues€in€addition€to€sufficiency€of€the€evidence.€€This€rule€protectsÐ ¸'#& Ðâ âa€defendantððs€constitutional€right€to€effective€counsel,€while€preventing€petitioners€from€pursuingÐ ¤(ô#' Ðuntimely€direct€appeals€in€cases€where€they€have€in€fact€received€effective€assistance€of€counsel€inÐ ° Ðconnection€with€post„trial€procedure.׃$×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWe€also€note€that€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€the€recent€case€of€òòBell€v.€Coneóó,€535Ð tÄ ÐU.S.€685€(2002),€discussed€the€òòCronicóó€standard.€€In€òòConeóó,€a€Tennessee€capital€case€on€certiorari€fromÐ `° Ðthe€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€reversedÐ L œ Ðthe€Sixth€Circuitððs€grant€of€a€writ€of€habeas€corpus€and€held€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐTennessee€properly€applied€the€conventional€òòStricklandóó€test€rather€than€òòCronicóó.€€òòId.óó€at€698.€€WritingÐ $ t Ðfor€the€majority,€Justice€Rehnquist€stated€that€ð ð[w]hen€we€spoke€in€òòCronicóó€of€the€possibility€ofÐ  ` Ðpresuming€prejudice€based€on€an€attorneyððs€failure€to€test€the€prosecutorððs€case,€we€indicated€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€attorneyððs€failure€must€be€complete.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€696„97.€€In€òòConeóó,€the€high€court€ultimatelyÐ è 8  Ðdetermined€that€counselððs€errors€were€sporadic€in€nature,€rather€than€complete.€€òòId.óó€at€697„98.€Ð Ô$  ÐTherefore,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€properly€appliedÐ À  Ðthe€òòStricklandóó€test€for€ð ðactual€prejudice.ðð€€òòId.óóÐ ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAs€we€have€previously€stated,€we€find€that€trial€counselððs€deficiencies€post„trial€amountedÐ „Ô  Ðto€a€complete€failure€to€subject€the€Stateððs€case€to€appellate€scrutiny.€€As€a€result,€we€hold€that€in€theÐ pÀ Ðcase€at€bar,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€erred€in€applying€only€the€òòStricklandóó€test.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€hold€that€counselððs€performance€following€the€defendantððs€conviction€wasÐ 4„ Ðdeficient€and€presumptively€prejudicial.€€As€a€direct€result€of€counselððs€ineffective€assistance,€theÐ  p Ðdefendant€was€procedurally€barred€from€pursuing€issues€on€appeal,€and€the€Stateððs€case€was€notÐ  \ Ðsubjected€to€adversarial€scrutiny€upon€appeal.Ð øH ÐÌÌò òà@FF%ìàCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àAfter€reviewing€the€record€and€applicable€authority,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properlyÐ ”ä Ðgranted€a€delayed€appeal€based€upon€ineffective€assistance€of€counsel.€€We€therefore€reverse€theÐ €Ð ÐCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals,€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€a€delayed€appeal,€and€remand€to€the€CourtÐ l¼ Ðof€Criminal€Appeals€for€review€of€the€issues€presented€by€the€defendantððs€appeal€from€the€trialÐ X ¨ Ðcourtððs€denial€of€his€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð D!” ÐÌÐ #l! Їà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICE