FILED

October 9, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JUNE 1998 SESSION

REGINALD HENDRIX, )

) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9708-CR-00343

Appelant, )

) DAVIDSON COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. THOMAS SHRIVER,

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appelee. ) (Post-Conviction)

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

JOHN B. BLAIR, III JOHN KNOX WALKUP

211 Union St., Suite 915 Attorney General & Reporter

Nashville, TN 37201

LISA A. NAYLOR

Asst. Attorney General

 John Sevier Bldg.

425 Fifth Ave., North 

Nashville, TN 37243-0493

VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III

District Attorney General

MARY HAUSMAN

Asst. District Attorney General

222 Second Ave., North, Suite 500

Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED:____________________

REVERSED

JOHN H. PEAY,

Judge
1

The petitioner was sentenced separately on the crimes he committed while released. 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 petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, arguing that but for his attorney’s failure to advise him

of his right to appeal after the sentencing hearing, he would have appealed from the sentence imposed and likely succeeded.

Following a hearing, the trial court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. After a review of the record, we agree with

the petitioner and reverse the action of the trial court.

The petitioner was charged with and pled guilty to several counts of aggravated assault, aggravated burglary,

and burglary. For one of the aggravated burglary counts, the trial court ordered the petitioner to successfully complete the Lifeline

drug treatment program and imposed a one-year sentence of incarceration to be served day-for-day. By agreement, the trial court

postponed sentencing on the remaining counts, stating that it would sentence the petitioner to concurrent sentences on the

remaining counts if he successfully completed the Lifeline program and maintained a “good institutional record.” At the time of this

hearing, the petitioner was represented by Mr. David Baker of the Public Defender’s Office in Nashville.

After the petitioner was released early from jail to the Community Corrections program, and while his

sentencing hearing on the remaining charges was still pending, the petitioner committed other crimes. When the petitioner

appeared in court for sentencing on the remaining charges,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 ashv i 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 r i 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 r i t t en w a i ver of appeal

pur suant t o Tenness ee R u l e of C r i 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 - conv i c t i on r e l i e f , w h i ch h a s
3

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 r i 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 - conv i 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 to th 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 ecei ve 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 o appeal . 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 o cont a c t to M 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 M r . 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 kel y 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 r i 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 gi ven 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 cons t 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 r i m .

A pp. f i l ed M a r ch 17, 1994, at N ashv i l l e ) . M o r eover , couns e l f o r a def endant w i t h a r i ght
4

t o appeal 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 r i m i nal P r ocedur e

37( d ) . Fai l u r e t o f i l e a w r i t t en w a i ver of appeal does not r ender a j udgm ent in v a lid if t h e

r ecor d cl ear l y and una m b i guousl y s how s t hat t he def endant knew of hi s r i ght t o appeal

and i n t ended t o w a i ve t hat r i 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. Cr i m . A pp. f i l ed A p r i l 13, 1995, at N ashv i 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 r i m . A pp. 1997) .

H e r e , t he evi dence s how 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 s r i ght t o appeal and t hat he knew t he pet i t i oner w ant e d

t o appeal hi s se n t ence i f he r ecei ved c onsec u t i ve s ent ences . H o w ever , af t e r t he t r i 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 s sent 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 cabl y r e f e r r ed t he pet i t i oner t o M r . B aker , w ho w a s no l onger ass i gned

t o r 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 r i 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 s H a r r ill 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 r i m .

A pp. f i l ed June 1 8 , 1997, at K noxv i 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 0 1 -

9504- C R - 00112, S hel by Count y ( Tenn. C r i 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 noxv i 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 r i m . A pp. 1984) . The t r i 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 n
5

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