WPC +Bo!-miUxs\KlBQ)+mG֒T`50C)kPf6=/v'֑cTЗуlr4w8Y!`"!WR:ހ1U $$-&vM2Թlá|txetnj@#"ՠ_>x k6} -y"ΓRgcay6c{[Ktf/ X=,qU9Y*Wkj xPJFwN` }1f 1X DfVAz/UbjMxS"~95{Py*2ϮIYhV}E)m<>xK RrZN*u4墳Hsw}!pr~]>|7Sy"ޗ\]9?S˜91!Y^2G3}:;]т kjV~Iܦb#\^  %) 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a ''NEw"y'b 0 B 0 D3v D- 0K AS!t 0: 0D A"HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0}.) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular~&)+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  v R $      1    _ThatMr.Kingwouldfilethisnoticeofappealissomewhatmystifyingbecausehehadallegedinhispetition  forwritofcertiorarithatthedenovoappealaffordedbyTenn.CodeAnn.275102(1980)was inadequate.  R $      2    _Anapplicationforpermissiontoappealhasbeenfiledinthiscase,buttheTennesseeSupremeCourthasnot  actedontheapplication.  R $      3    _ThefateofMr.Kingsdenovoappealthatthetrialcourtdismissedwithoutprejudicewasdiscussedduring  oralargument.Mr.Kinghasnotformallyrequestedthathisdenovoappealbereinstatedshouldthetrialcourtsdecision t tograntthepetitionforcommonlawwritofcertioraribereversed.Ourdecisiontoreversethetrialcourtsdecisionto 8 grantthecommonlawwritofcertioraridoesnotautomaticallyreinstateMr.KingsappealpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn. L 275102.Mr.Kingmadeatacticaldecisiontopursuetwodifferentremediestocircumventthe$18,600citycourt  judgmentagainsthim!thepetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariandthedenovoappealpursuanttoTenn.Code  Ann.275102.Whengiventhechoice,heelectedtopursuehisremediesunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorari H  becausehebelievedthatthedenovoappealremedywas inadequate.Accordingly,duringtheOctober11,1999  \ proceedings,Mr.Kingslawyerannouncedthathe wouldnotcontestadismissalofthatappeal[theappealdenovo]   withoutprejudice.ThischoiceofremedyisnowirrevocablebecauseMr.Kinghaspursuedhiscertiorariremedyto    itsdeterminativeconclusion.Heisthusestoppedfrompursuingtheremedyheabandonedeventhoughtheremedyhe X   choseprovedtobeunsuccessful.Davisv.TennesseeDeptofEmploymentSecurity,23S.W.3d.304,30910(Tenn.  l  Ct.App.1999).- -(|G2 $ !.8Bdd8         0   d(|3G$ !.8Bdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3G$ !.8Bdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Bdd8     _  B8XXdd8  @ IBINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#BI #Ԉ &   September2000Session L XXB #BXX#TOWNOFNOLENSVILLEv.RONALDM.KINGXXB  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWilliamsonCounty  J @@No.I99517RussHeldman,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M199902512_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember14,_2000_   AV) ` dE<|` A }   #BXX^#  XXBThisappealarisesfromtheenforcementoftheTownofNolensvillesordinanceoutlawingthe x  storageofabandonedorunusableautomobilesandstoragetrailerswithinitscitylimits.Afterthe d NolensvilleCityCourtenteredajudgmentagainsthimfor$18,600,atownresidentpetitionedthe P CircuitCourtforWilliamsonCountyforacommonlawwritofcertiorariseekingtosetasidethecity < courtsjudgmentbecausehehadbeendeprivedofhisrighttoajurytrial.Thetrialcourtgrantedthe (x writandsetasidethecitycourtsjudgmentbasedonitsconclusionthatTenn.Const.art.VI,14 d guaranteestherighttoajurytrialforfinesinexcessoffiftydollars.Wehavedeterminedthatthe P trialcourtmisconstruedTenn.Const.art.VI,14and,therefore,wevacatetheordergrantingthe < writofcertiorariandremandthecasetothetrialcourtwithdirectionstodismissthepetitionforwrit ( ofcertiorari.     Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtVacated   h WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand t PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined. ` RobertJ.Notestine,III,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,TownofNolensville. 8!  JohnE.Herbison,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,RonaldM.King. #`" @66' OPINION  $8 $   TheTownofNolensvillehasanordinanceprohibitingtheaccumulationoftrash,litter,and &"& garbageonrealpropertywithinthetownlimits.Theordinanceincludesabandonedandunusable '"' automobilesandstoragetrailers.Violationsofthisordinancecarrya penaltyofupto$500for (#( eachoffense,andeachdayaviolationcontinuesconstitutesaseparateoffense. )$)   OnApril19,1999,RonaldM.Kingwascitedforviolatingtheordinancebecausehewas \+&+ storinganinoperativevehicle,asemitrailer,andassortedpilesofscrapandwoodenpalletsonhis H,', property.OnApril24,1999,theNolensvilleCityCourtorderedMr.Kingtopay$50forviolating 4-(- theordinancebutsuspendeditsorderforthirtydaystogiveMr.Kinganopportunitytocleanuphis  property.Mr.KingpaidnoheedandonMay29,1999,receivedanothercitationforviolatingthe  ordinance.AtasecondhearingonJune26,1999,thecitycourtagainfoundMr.Kingguiltyof  violatingtheordinancebutcontinuedtheproceedingforsixtydaysafterMr.Kingpromisedtoclean t uphisproperty.ThecitycourtspecificallystatedthatthecaseagainstMr.Kingwouldbedismissed ` ifhecleaneduphispropertywithinsixtydays. L    ThecitycourtconductedathirdhearingonAugust28,1999.AfterdeterminingthatMr. $ t Kinghadnotfulfilledhiscommitmenttobringhispropertyintocompliance,thecitycourt  ` determinedthathehadviolatedtheordinanceforsixtytwodays.Thetrialcourtalsodetermined  L  thatMr.Kingshouldpay$300foreachseparateviolation.Becausetheordinanceprovidedthateach  8  dayofnonconformancewasaseparateviolation,thecitycourtawardedtheTownofNolensvillea $  judgmentagainstMr.Kingfor$18,600.     OnSeptember8,1999,Mr.Kingfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariinthe   CircuitCourtforWilliamsonCountyassertingthatthecitycourthadviolatedTenn.Const.art.VI,   14byimposingafineinexcessoffiftydollarswithoutaffordinghimajurytrial.Simultaneously, p Mr.Kingfiledanoticeofappealfromthecitycourtsjudgment.  #  1      ׀FollowinganOctober11,1999 \ hearing,thetrialcourtfiledamemorandumopinionandorderonNovember12,1999,grantingMr. H Kingspetitionforwritofcertiorari,vacatingthecitycourts$18,600judgment,andremandingthe 4 casetothecitycourtfortheentryofajudgmentnottoexceed$50.Thetrialcourtbasedthe  p decisiononitsconclusionsthatMr.Kingwasentitledtoajurytrialinproceedingswherethepenalty  \ couldexceed$50andthatMr.Kinghadnotwaivedhisrighttoajurytrialinthecitycourt H proceedings.ThetrialcourtalsodismissedMr.Kingsdenovoappealwithoutprejudiceatthe 4 requestofMr.Kingscounsel.TheTownofNolensvillehasappealed.   @) I.     Mr.KingsargumentthatTenn.Const.art.VI,14guaranteeshimtherighttoajurytrial  inthecitycourtisnotnewtothiscourt.Werecentlyconsideredasimilarargumentinacase l involvingtheimpositionofa$500 fineforviolatingaNashvilleordinancethatrequiredobtaining X  abuildingpermitpriortorepairingabuilding.WeconcludedthattheappellantsrelianceonTenn. D! Const.art.VI,14wasmisplacedfortworeasons.First,the fineorpenaltyresultingfromthe 0"  violationofthecityordinancewasinthenatureofacivildebtthatwasnotcoveredbyTenn.Const. #l! art.VI,14.Second,wepointedoutthattheappellantcouldhaveeasilyobtainedthejurytrialhe $X" desiredsimplybypursingadenovoappealinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.275108(1980) $D #  andbyrequestingajurytrial.Barrettv.MetropolitanGovernment,No.M199901130COAR3 %0!$ CV,2000WL798657,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.June22,2000).  #  2      ׀OurdecisioninBarrettv.   MetropolitanGovernmentisfullyapplicabletothiscase.Therefore,basedonthereasoningin  Barrettv.MetropolitanGovernment,wefindthatMr.Kingwasnotdeprivedofarighttoajurytrial  guaranteedbyTenn.Const.art.VI,14becausethe$18,600judgmentagainsthimwasforacivil t debtratherthanacriminalfineandbecausehecouldhavehadajurytrialhadhepursuedanappeal ` denovoinaccordancewithTenn.CodeAnn.275102. L  @) II.  $ t   Thetrialcourtsordergrantingthewritofcertiorariandvacatingthejudgmentofthe  L  NolensvilleCityCourtisreversed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtwithdirectionsthatMr.  8  Kingspetitionforwritofcommonlawcertioraribedismissed.  #  3      ׀Wetaxthecostsofthisappealto $  RonaldM.Kingforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.       `     h     ___________________________________ p    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE