Since that time though, the application of the Jackson procedure has caused innumerable problems and has become a trap for the unwary, potentially frustrating the presentation of some defendants' ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, rather than facilitating the presentation of those claims. See, e.g., Pardue v. State, 661 So.2d 263 (Ala.Cr.App. 1993) (to what extent does the Ex parte Jackson procedure apply to pre- Jackson cases?), rev'd on other grounds, 661 So.2d 268 (Ala. 1994); Eldridge v. State, 655 So.2d 1095 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994) (confusion over when new trial motion is due); Alderman v. State, 647 So.2d 28 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994) (whether failure to properly follow the Jackson procedure is ineffective assistance of appellate counsel); Ex parte Webb, 656 So.2d 351 (Ala. 1995) (whether a Jackson motion to suspend the running of the time for a new trial motion also suspends the running of the time to file a notice of appeal); Musgrove v. State, 659 So.2d 229 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995) (the implications of a court reporter's failure to give appellate counsel notice of the completion of the record). See, e.g., Wilson v. State, 659 So.2d 152 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994); Davenport v. State, 653 So.2d 1006 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994); see also H. Maddox, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure (2d ed. 1994), Vol. 1, ยง 6.0, p. 239 ("If new counsel is appointed to represent an indigent defendant on appeal, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must be made on motion for new trial or it is waived.").
(Upon the filing of a motion for new trial, the 42-day time period in Rule 4(b)(1) is tolled until the motion is ruled on.) See Ex parte Webb, 656 So.2d 351 (Ala. 1995).) It should make no difference which came first: the notice of appeal or the timely filed Jackson motion Adopting this new policy allows everyone filing a Jackson motion within the time period to file a notice of appeal to raise issues of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal. This was the intent behind the Alabama Supreme Court's ruling in Jackson.