# FILED October 9, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE JUNE 1998 SESSION REGINALD HENDRIX, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9708-C R-00343 Appel ant , ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. THOMAS SHRIVER, STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appel ee. ) (P o st -C o n vic tio n ) FOR THE AP PELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE: JOHN B. BLAIR, III JOHN KNOX WALKUP 211 Union St . ,Suit e 915 Att orney General & R eport er Nashvi l l e, TN 37201 LISA A. NAYLOR Asst . Att orney General John Sevi er Bl dg. 425 Fif t h Ave., Nort h Nashvi l l e, TN 37243-0493 VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III Dist ri ct Att orney General MARY HAUSMAN Asst . Dist ri ct Att orney General 222 Second Ave., Nort h,

Suit e 500 Nashvi l l e, TN 37201-1649

OP I NION F I LED:____________________ REVERSED JOHN H. PEAY, Judge1 The petitioner was sentenced separat ely on the crimes he committed whi le rel eased. These senten ces are not involve d in the insta nt petition for p ost-con viction relief. 2 

### O P I N I O N The peti ti oner f i l ed a peti t

i on for post -c onvi ct i on rel i ef,argui ng thatbut

f or hi s at t orney ’ s f ai l ure t o advi se hi m of h is rig h t to a ppealaft er t he sent

enci ng heari ng,

he would have appeal ed from

t he sent ence i m posed and l i kel y succ

eeded. Fol l owing a heari ng, t he tr i al cour t deni ed t he peti t i on, and the pet it i oner now appeal s. Aft er a

re vie w o f th e re co rd , w e a g re e w ith t he peti ti oner and r

ever se t he act i on of t he tr i al

cour t . The peti ti oner was

char ged wit h and pled guil ty t o several counts of aggravated assa ult , aggravated burglary, and burgl ary . For one of t he aggrav at ed burgl ary count s, t he tr i al cour t ordered the peti t i oner t o succes

sf ul ly complet e the

L ife lin e drug treat m ent program and i m posed a one-y

ear s ent ence of i ncar cer at i on to be s erv ed day- f or- day. By agreement, t

he tr i al cour t postponed se nte nc ing on the rem ain ing co un ts, sta ting tha t it wo uld se nte nc e th e p etition er t o concur rentsen

t ences on t he remai ni ng count s if he succes sf ul ly complet ed

t he Lif el i ne progr am and m ai nt ai ned a “good i nst itut

i onal rec ord. ” At t he ti m e of t hi s heari ng, t he peti ti oner was r

epres ent ed by Mr. David Baker of t he Publi c Defender’ s Off i ce i n Nashvi l l e. Af te r t he peti ti oner was r

el eased ear ly f rom jai l t o the Comm

unit y Corr ect i ons pr ogram, a nd whil e hi s sent enci ng heari ng on the rem

ai ni ng char ges wa s sti ll pendi ng,

t he peti t i oner c om m it t ed other cr i m es. W hen the pet iti oner appeared in court for sent encing on the rem aini ng cha rges, 1 M r. P aul N e w

m an, al so of

t he P ubl i c D e f ender ’ s O ffic e i n N ashvi l l e , appear

e d on beha l f

of t he pet i t i oner becaus e M r. B aker

had been tra n s f e rre d t

o anot her cour t . A t t h i s s econd sent enci ng hear

i ng, t he t ri a l cour t i m posed cons ecut i v e sent ences on t he r e m a i n i ng count

s . The def

endant di d not a ppea l fro m t hese sent ences, and th e r

ecor d i n t h i s c ase does not cont a i n a w ri t t en w a i ver of appeal pur suant t o Tennessee R u l e of

C ri m i nal P r

ocedur e 37( d ) . The pet i t i oner f i l ed a pet

i t i on f o r post - convi c t i on r e l i e f , w h i ch h a s3

subs equent l y bee n am e n ded t

o al l ege t

hat M r. N e w

m an w as i nef f ect i ve f o r f a i l i ng t o i n f o r m hi m of

h i s ri g h t t

o appeal f

r o m t he cons ecut i ve s ent ences i m posed on

t h e r e m a i n i n g char

ges. A post

- convi c t i o n hear i ng w as hel d , at

w h i ch t h e pet i t i oner t est i f i e d t hat M r. N e w

m an never

i n f o r m ed hi m of

hi s r i ght t o appeal and t

hat i f he had, he w

oul d have appeal ed. M r. N e w

m an al s o

t est i f i ed at t he hear i ng. H e t est i f i ed t hat pr i o r toth e sent enc i n g hear

i ng, he t o l d t he pet i t i oner t hat he w oul d pr obabl y r eceive c onsec u t i v e sent ences and t he pet i t i oner r esponded

t hat he w ant ed t oappeal . To t

hat , M r. N e w

m a n t o l d hi m t hat i f he w ant ed t o appeal , he needed t ocont a c t toM r. B a k e r. A fte r th e sent enci n g hear

i ng, M r. N e w

m an had no c

ont act wi t h t he pet i t i oner at al l , even t

hough h e adm i t

t ed t hat t he P ubl i c Def

ender ’ s O f f i ce was t

he pet i t i oner ’ s c our t - appoi n t e d a t t o r ney and t hat he w as as s i gned t o r epr esent t he pet i t i oner ’ s i n t e r est s at t hat t i m e . H o w ever , he di d t a l k w i t h M r. B aker

, i n f o r m i ng Mr. B aker

of w hat he t o l d t he pet i t i oner and t hat t he pet i t i oner w oul d l i kely be get

t i n g i n t ouch wi t h hi m . M r. B aker

t est i f i ed t hat h e di d not

r ecal l advi s i ng t

he pet i t i oner of hi s r i ght t o appeal o r

t a l k i ng t o t he pet i t i oner about w het her he w ant ed t o appeal . A f

t e r hear i ng t h i s te s t i m ony, t he t ri a l cour t f ound, i n t e r a lia , t hat t he pet i t i oner w as awar e of

hi s r i ght t o appeal and t

hat hi s f a i l u r e t o appeal w as due t o hi s own negl ect

. I n r evi e w i ng t he pet i t i oner ’ s Si x t h A m e n d m e n t

cl a i m of

i nef f ect i v e assi s t a n c e of couns e l , t h i s Cour t m ust det e r m i ne w het her t he advi ce given or

ser v i ces r ender e d by t he pet i t i oner ’ s at t o r ney, M r. N e w

m an, ar e w i t h i n t he r ange of com pet ence dem anded of

at t o r neys i n cr i m i nal case s . B a x t e r v . R o s e , 523 S . W . 2d 930, 936 (

Tenn. 1975) . D e f

ense c ounsel has an a f

f i r m a t i ve dut y t o advi s e hi s or her cl i ent of t he r i ght t o appeal a sent

ence, and t

he f a i l u r e t o do so const

i t u t es def i c i ent per f o r m ance. G a r

v i n S hepher d v . S t a t e , C . C . A . No . 01C 01- 9303- C R - 00080, D avi dson Count y ( Tenn. C ri m . A pp. f i l ed M a r ch 17, 1994, at

N ashvi l l e ) . M

o r eover , couns e l f o r a def endant w i t h a r i ght4

t oappeal f

r o m a j udgm ent

of conv i c t i on m ust ei t her t i m e l y file a n o t

i ce of appeal or

a w ritte n w a i ver of appeal si gned by t

he def endant . Tenness ee R u l e of

C ri m i nal P r

ocedur e 37( d ) . Fai l u r

e t o f i l e a w ri t t en w a i ver of appeal does not

r ender a j udgm ent

in v a lid if th e r ecor d cl ear l y and una m b i guously s how st hat t he def endant knew of hi s r i ght t o appeal and i n t ended t ow a i ve t hat ri ght . S e e D a l e M . Jenk

i ns v. S t a t e , C . C . A . N o . 01C 01- 9405- C R - 00156, M

ont gom e r y Count y ( Tenn. Cri m . A pp. f

i l ed A p r i l 13, 1995, at

N ashvi l l e ) ; see a l s o R a i ner

v. S t a t e , 958 S. W . 2d 356 (

Tenn. C ri m . A pp. 1997) . H e r e , t he evi dence show

s t hat M r. N e w m an t a l ked t o t he pet i t i oner p rio r to t h e sent enci ng hear

i ng about

hi sri ght t o appeal and t

hat he knew t he pet

i t i oner w ant e d t oappeal hi s se n t

ence i f he r eceived c

onsec u t i ve s ent ences . H o w

ever , af t e r t he t ri a l cour t i m posed c

onsec u t i ve s ent ences, M r. N e w

m an f a i l ed t o di s c uss w i t h t he pet i t i oner w het her he had c hanged hi s m i nd or w het her he st i l l w ant ed t o appeal hi ssent

ence, even t hough he w

as t he at t o r ney as s i gned t o r epr esent t he pet i t i oner ’ s i n t e r est s . I nst ead, M r. N e w m a n i nexpl i cably r

e f e r r ed t he pet i t i oner t o Mr. B aker

, w ho w a snol onger

ass i gned t or epr esent t he pet i t i oner . M r. N e w

m an never

com m uni cat

ed w i t h t he pet i t i oner af t e r t h e sent enci n g hear

i ng and no w

ri t t en w a i ver of appeal appear

s i n t h e r ecor d . U nder

t hese c i r cum s t a n ces, t he pet i t i oner shoul d have be

en gr ant ed a del ayed app

eal . S ee, e. g . , C har l e sH a r rill v . S t a t e , C . C . A . N o . 03C 01- 9605- C C - 00185, B l ount C ount y ( Tenn. C ri m . A pp. f i l ed June 1 8 , 1997, at

K noxvi l l e ) ; M a r

k W . R a w

l i ngs v. S t a t e , C . C . A . N o . 0 2 C 01 - 9504- C R - 00112, S hel by Count y ( Tenn. C ri m . A pp. f

i l ed A p r i l 17, 1996, at

Jac k s on) . The pet i t i oner need not

show pr e j udi c e

bef o r e bei ng gr

ant ed suc h r e l i e f . S t a t e v. Lest e r D . H e rro n , C . C . A . N o . 03C 01- 9109- C R - 00284, H a w k i n s Coun t y

(T e n n . C rim . A p p . fil e d M a r c h 10, 1992, at

K noxvi l l e ) . Ther

e f o r e , of cour se, i n no w

ay do we addr ess

t he m e r i t s o f suc h appeal bef

o r e gr ant i ng t h i s r e l i e f . S ee, e. g . , i d . ; P i nkst

o n v . S t a t e , 668 S. W . 2 d 676 ( Tenn. C ri m . A pp. 1984) . The t ri a l cour t ’ s deni a l of

t he pet i t i o n fo r p o s t-c

o nvi c t i o n5

r e lie f i s r eve r s ed and t

he pet i t i oner i s gr ant ed a del ayed app

eal of t he sent ences i m posed.

_____________________ __________ J O H N H. PEAY, J u d g e CONCUR:

_____________________ _________ J OSEPH M. T I P T ON, J u d g e

_____________________ _________ DAVI D G . HAYES, J u d g e