### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 6, 200 8
BER NA RD HEN RY v. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE Appeal from t he Criminal Court for Shelb y County No. 02-05634 W. Fr ed Axley, Judge

No. W2007-00679-C CA-R 3-PC - Filed Jul y 25, 2008

The Petitioner, B erna

rd He nry, appe als from the Shelby County Criminal Court’s order dismissing his pe tit ion fo r p os t- c on vic tio n r e lie f. He arg ue s th a t th e dis mis sa l w a s e rr on e ou s b ecaus e he did no t r e c e ive the e ff

e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of tr ia l c ou ns e l a nd be c a us e the po st- c on vic tio n c ou rt imp ro pe rl y preve nted him from pre senting evidenc e that his appe llate counsel was inef fec tive. After

a re view of t he re cord, w e conc lude that the post-convic tion court err ed in denying the Petitioner a n opportunity to be hear d on his claim of ineff ective a ssistance of appellate counsel. Accordingly, the c a se is r e ma nd e d f

or fu rthe r p ro c e e din gs
. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f R igh t; Judg me nt of th e Cr im ina l C our t R e ve r se d; Rem anded
D AVI D H. W ELL ES , J., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which J A M ES C UR W OOD W I TT , J R ., J., and D AVI D G. H AYES , S R
. J., joined. Jason Poyner, Memphis, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Berna

rd He nry. Robert E. Cooper, Jr

. , At t orney G ener al and Reporter; Camer on L. Hyder , Assistant Attorney Gene ral; William L. Gibbons, District Attorney Ge n eral; and Tom Hoover , Assistant District Attorney Ge nera l, for the a ppellee, State of

Tenne ssee. OP IN ION
Fa c tu al B ac kgr ound A Shelby County jury convicte d the Petitioner of two counts of a ggravated child abuse and ne gle c t, a Cla ss A fe lon y. Se e Te nn . Co de An n. § 3 9- 15 -4 02 . T he tr ial cou rt sen te nc e d h im t o co n c u rr e n t s e n te n c e s o f

tw e n ty

- f iv e y e ar s a s a

v io le n t o f

f e n d e r
. O n d ir e c t a

p p e a l, th is Court aff irmed his convictions but modified the length of his sentenc es to twenty yea rs. See State v. Bernar d J. Henry, N o. W2003-03045- CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 2848382 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Dec . 9, 2004), perm. to appeal de nied, (Te nn. Mar. 28, 2005)

.-2-

On May 20, 2005, the Petitioner, pro se, filed a petition for post-conviction re lief, which w as amende d following the appointment of counse l. The Petitioner sought relief on the basis t hat trial and appe llate counse l rende red ine ffe ctive assistanc e.
A he ar in g w a s h e ld o n th e p e ti ti o n o n O c to b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6 , a t w h ic h th e Pe ti ti o n e r a n d trial c ou ns e l te sti fi e d. Th e Pe tit ion e r the n a tte mpt e d to c a ll a pp e llate cou ns el as a wi tne ss. Th e Sta te objected, and the following colloquy occ urre d:

[PO ST-CONVICTIO N COUNSEL]: Essentially, that’s our pr oof as f ar a s the, [trial c ounsel] goes. Now, he is re prese nted on appe al by Mr. Brayton. And, that was the othe r issue that I wa s talking [sic]. [T HE STA TE]: Ju dg e , d o I ha ve , d oe s [ p] os t[ -c ]o nv ic tio n c ov e r a pp e llate c ou ns e l?
THE COURT: No. [THE STATE] : I didn’t think so. S o, I wo u ld object to any further proof along that line. [POST-CONVICTIO N COUNSEL]: All right. I get a rule [sic ] on it today? THE COURT: No, but you can raise that issue on appea l, if there is a nee d for a ppeal, that you we re pr evente d in calling the appellate l awye r. You may make new law . I’m serious. The post-c onviction court then de nied re lief by writ t en orde r on Februa ry 23, 2007, c on c lud i n g t h a tt h e P e t i t i o n e r d i d n o tp r o v e t h a th e r e c e i v e d t h e i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l. This appea l followed.
AN AL YSI S The Petitioner now appea ls to this Court, arguing that (1) the tria l counsel’s pe rformance was constitutionally i nadequate and (2) t he post -convic tion court e rre d in preve nting him from offering proof of appellate counsel’s ine ffe ctiveness. The Stat e conce des er ror r egar ding denial of the Petitioner’s right to be hea rd on cla ims of ineffe ctive assistanc e of a ppellate c ounsel, and we agre e.
In Carp e nte r v . St a te , 1 26 S.W .3 d 879 (T e nn . 2 00 4) , o ur su pr e me c ou rt

he ld that th e sa me te st tha t app lie d to cla ims of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of tr ia l cou ns e l unde r the fe de ra l con sti tut ion , a lso applied to determine whether appellate counsel wa s constitutionally effec tive: “To de t er m ine wh e the r a pp e llate c ou ns el was con sti tut ion a lly e ff e c tiv e , w e us e the tw o- pr on g te st s e t f orth i n Strickland v. Wa shington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)—the same t est that is applied to claims of ineff ective assistance of trial counsel asserte d under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Const itution.” Carpente r, 126 S.W.3d at 886; see also Smit h v. Murra y, 477 U.S. 527, 535-36 (1986) ( applying Strickland to a cla im of attorney e rror on appea l).-3-

Althoug hth e is s u e o f

tr ia l c ounsel’s per formanc e has be en dete rmined by the post-c onviction c ou rt , t h e P e t i t i o n e r p r o p e r l y r a i s e d t h e c l a i m o f i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f ap p e l l a t e c o u n s e l in h is petition and is entitled to have it cons idere d by and dete rmined by the post-c onviction court. See La ra iel Win to n v . St a te , N o. E2 00 6- 02 39 2- CCA -R 3- PC, 2 00 7 W L 2 43 81 12 , at *1 (T e nn . Crim. App., Knoxville, Aug. 29, 2007). Considerations of judicial ec onomy and the avoiding of pie ceme al appea ls mandate that we rema nd this c ase to the post-conviction court. The Petitioner has ha d no op po rtun ity to r a ise the iss ue of ine ff e c tiv e a ssi sta nc e of

app e llate c ou ns e l, andhe is e nti tle d to prese nt proof on the merits of this claim. After the post-conviction court considers a nd rules on the merits of the Petitioner’s claim of ineffe ctive assistance of appe llate counse l, appellate r eview of the post-conviction court’s ru l i n g s on the ineff ective a ssistance of trial and appe llate counse l may proce ed ane w in acc ordanc e with the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e. CO NC LU SION Based upon the f

oregoing ration al e, t h e order of the post-conviction court dismi ssing the petition is vacated. The case is remande d for f urther pr ocee dings consistent with thi s opinion.

______________________________ DAVI D H. WE LLES, JUDGE