Delayed Criminal Appeals
Case: Antonio Howard v. State of Tennessee
Facts: Petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a timely motion for new trial.
Appellate Decision: The intermediate court held that trial counsel was deficient and Petitioner was presumptively prejudiced by the deficiency pursuant to Wallace v. State, 121 S.W.3d 652 (Tenn. 2003). The court remanded with instructions to grant a delayed appeal, beginning with the right to file a delayed motion for new trial.
Review Granted: June 24, 2019
Prediction: The State conceded the intermediate court was bound by Wallace but contended that decision was wrongly decided. Ben thinks the Supreme Court will uphold Wallace. The failure of trial counsel to file a motion for new trial is an abandonment of representation per United State v. Cronic, and simply addressed a delayed appeal is more efficient than performing a “prejudice” analysis in a post-conviction proceeding along with other issues raised.