(C. 10-11.) On the authority of Ex parte Fountain and Brooks v. State we must reverse the circuit court's denial of Thompson's second Rule 32, Ala.R.Crim.P., petition. Despite the circuit court's conclusion that Thompson's failure to file a timely notice of appeal was not the fault of the court, its order, nevertheless, acknowledges the circuit clerk's involvement in rebuking Thompson's attempt to file a pro se notice of appeal. Although Thompson had no constitutional right to appointed counsel in a Rule 32 proceeding, see Cook v. State, 630 So.2d 492 (Ala.Crim.App. 1993), the circuit court saw fit to appoint counsel to represent Thompson. Because Thompson had appointed counsel, the circuit clerk refused to allow Thompson to proceed pro se. Between the actions of his appointed counsel and the actions of the circuit clerk, Thompson found himself mired in a classic "catch 22" situation: counsel would not respond to his request to file a notice of appeal and the circuit clerk, knowing that Thompson was represented by counsel, refused to allow him to file a pro se notice of appeal. Given the particular circumstances of this case, Thompson should have been allowed to file a pro se notice of appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that procedural due process, together with the decisions in Ex parte Fountain and Brooks v. State, mandate that Thompson is entitled to an out-of-time appeal. The circuit court's summary denial of Thompson's second Rule 32 petition is reversed and the circuit court is directed to enter a new order and to notify Thompson promptly of that