I am a bit concerned by Belcher, Nos. 14-00-811/2-CR, on rehearing, (11/27/02). It appears to me that the court will discard the prejudice prong of Strickland whenever they can characterize the lack of assistance as a constructive denial of counsel. Failure to correctly calculate deadlines becomes a denial of counsel. Thus, I foresee the easiest way to at least delay the ultimate outcome of a case to be to miss deadlines. For example, in a recent revocation case the new appellate counsel filed a motion for new trial after the 30th day. It had previously been my position that a motion for new trial was improper in regard to revocation orders, but Jordan, 36 S.W.3d at 876 n. 35, seems to say otherwise. In any event, what is to prevent the argument upon appeal that the appellant was constructively deprived of counsel by the late filing and should now get an automatic out-of-time hearing? Note, the defendant timely gave a notice of appeal and secured bail before filing the MNT. But, he has never filed the Reporter's Record, so the appeal is on indefinite hold. When the CA ordered a hearing to determine whether he desired to continue with the appeal, neither he nor his attorney showed up, but the attorney has since called to say he did not receive the notice of the setting and a second hearing is scheduled. I think I understand what is going on-- but does not this interpretation of the Sixth Amendment just encourage it?