# FILED
March 3, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE JANUARY 1999 SESSION

JASON BRADBURN ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C 01-9803-CC-00110 Appellant, ) ) MAURY COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. JIM T. HAMILTON, STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) JUDGE ) Appellee. ) (Post-Conviction - Delayed Appeal)

FOR THE APPE LLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
MIC HAEL J. F LANAG AN JOHN KNOX WALKUP 95 White Bridge Rd., Suite 208 Attorney General & Repor ter Nashville, TN 37205 DARYL J. BRAND Asst. Attorney General John Sevier Bldg. 425 Fifth Ave., North Nashville, TN 37243-0493 MIKE BOTTOMS District Attorney General STELLA L. HA

RGOVE-andJES SE D URH AM Asst. District Attor

neys General P.O. Box 1619 Columbia, TN 38401-1619

OPINION FILED:____________________

APPEAL DISMISSED JOHN H. PEAY, Judge2 

### O P I N I O N

The petitioner

seeks a delayed appeal from the trial court’s orde r revoking his probation. After a review of the record and applicable law, we dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.

In April 1994, the petitioner pled guilty to several charges for which h e received an effective sentence of twelv e years, six y

ears to be served on super vised probat ion and six years to be served on unsupervis ed probation. In July 1996, t h e petitioner

was arrested for sev

eral other offenses, including possession of marijuana and unlawful possession of a weapon. Four days later, his probation officer filed a prob ation viol ation repo rt, alleging that the petitioner had violated hi s probation by failing to obey the laws, failing to r

eport his new arrest,illegally posses sing a weapon, possessi ng marijuana, and failing to pay all required fees. Following a probation revocation hear ing in December 1996, the petitioner’s probation was revoked. He did not appeal.

In December 1997, the petitioner fil ed a petition for post-c onviction rel ief, alleging that his attorney had been ineffective for failing to appeal the probation revocation and for stating at the probation revocation hearing tha t the petitioner had violated the term s of his pr obation . By a gre ed order, the parties “sti pulated that prior counsel for the petitioner wasnot ineffective in his repr esentation,” but “agreed . . . that the petitioner is entitled to a delayed appeal upon the rev ocation of his probation.”

The Post-ConvictionProcedure Act of 1995 provid es that apetitioner who is unconstitutionally deni ed an appeal from his or her original conviction may seek a dela yed ap peal from the original conv iction, see

T.C.A. § 40-30-213(a), but ther e is no1 W e note that even if the petitioner’s delayed appeal were authorized by statute, the record contai ns ample evi dence to su pport t he tri al cour t’s de cisio n to rev

oke his pr

obati on. Thus, even if we were to consid er the merits of the peti tioner’s appeal, t he probati on revocati on order would be affirmed.

3 authority for a del aye d appeal from an order revoki ng probation. The parties’ agreed order cannot circumvent

t he Legislature’s clear intention to allow delayed appeals only f rom o riginal convicti ons and not from other judgments. The pe titioner’s attempt to belatedly appeal from the trial court’s probati on revocation order is unauthorized, and his appeal is accordingly

dismissed. 1

_______________________________ JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

CONCUR:

______________________________ DAVID H. W ELLES, Judge

______________________________ THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge