WPC8 4$M )r vx`!b֥ߦ(4u\>…0rX]-'XXzE͟7 A !qWx*OAVu-~(Bw  .F۽1Vw.ϑ{6ԅbgٴ zӝS'cnNjCB5 ,g(DjE1o*>U+ȺPxTʍQfu{o@tm'UFl)&~S"<4/&sNx`2fj86G dRĢ1̊xZcsbGif7 andfederalcourtsseekingpostconvictionreliefonvariousgrounds.Thesecriminalproceedings *z finallyconcludedupontheDecedentsdeathin1998.Thereafter,JerryRay,theDecedentsbrother f andtheExecutoroftheDecedentsestate,filedthislawsuitagainsttheStateofTennesseeinthe R ProbateCourtofDavidsonCounty,seekingthereturnofcertainpropertythathadbeenusedas > evidenceintheDecedentscriminalproceedingsandthatremainedinthecustodyoftheShelby * CountyCriminalCourtClerk.TheProbateCourtgrantedtheStatesmotiontodismissbecausethe  courtruledthattheExecutorsclaimwasbarredbythedoctrinesofsovereignimmunityand  collateralestoppel.WeaffirmtheProbateCourtsdismissaloftheExecutorscomplaint;however,  wedosouponthealternativegroundthattheProbateCourtlackedtheauthoritytoorderthetransfer  ordispositionofpropertyheldinthecustodyoftheCriminalCourtClerk. v #XXXX|$J##XX#XX Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheProbateCourtAffirmed;and N!  Remanded  >"! #X- #XX.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,andLillard,J., $n# joined. %^ $ PaulJ.Bruno,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JerryRay,ExecutoroftheEstateofJames &>"& EarlRay. '.#' PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,andDianne_Stamey_Ԁ_Dycus_,DeputyAttorney )%) General,forappellee,StateofTennessee. *%*  ~-(-7 @55' OPINION #XX #XXԈ  #XX#XXX|$XXX  InMarch1969,theDecedentpledguiltytothefirstdegreemurderofDr.MartinLuther  King,Jr.,andwassentencedtoninetynineyearsinthestatepenitentiary.Thereafter,theDecedent | soughtanewtrialbaseduponhisclaimthathisguiltypleawasnotenteredknowingly,intelligently, h andvoluntarily.OursupremecourtrejectedthisclaimanddeniedtheDecedentspetitionforwrit T  of certiorari . See  Rayv.State ,451S.W.2d854(Tenn.1970).Intheyearsfollowingthesupreme @  courtsdenialoftheDecedentspetition,theDecedentpursuedatleastsevenclaimsforpost , | convictionreliefinstateandfederalcourts. See  Rayv.State ,984S.W.2d236,237(Tenn.Crim.  h App.1997).Apparently,theDecedentcontinuedtopursuehisseventhpetitionforpostconviction  T  reliefuntilhisdeathinApril1998. See  Statev.Ray ,984S.W.2d239(Tenn.Crim.App.1998).The  @  Decedentscriminalproceedingsconcludeduponhisdeath. See  Carverv.State ,398S.W.2d719, ,  720(Tenn.1966).     AftertheDecedentsdeath,theDecedentsbrother,JerryRay,wasappointedExecutorof   theDecedentsestatebytheProbateCourtofDavidsonCounty.Thepresentlawsuitcommenced   inOctober1998,whentheExecutorfiledamotionintheProbateCourtaskingthecourttoorderthat x certainpropertycurrentlyinthepossessionoftheClerkoftheCriminalCourtofShelbyCountybe d transferredintothepossessionoftheClerkoftheProbateCourtofDavidsonCounty.Specifically, P theExecutoraskedtheProbateCourttotransferpossessionofthefollowingproperty:(1)one.3006 < caliberRemingtonhuntingrifle;(2)onetransistorradio;(3)onepairofbinoculars;(4)oneSchlitz (x beercan;and(5)underwear,toothbrush,andothermiscellaneouspersonalproperty.TheExecutor d subsequentlyfiledacomplaintagainsttheStateofTennesseeseekingthereturnofthesubject P property.TheExecutorscomplaintassertedthat < 8  thedefendant,actingthroughitsdulyelectedofficial,thepast,presentandfuture...  ClerkoftheCriminalCourtofthe30thJudicialDistrict,...wrongfullyrefusesto  deliveruppossessionofpropertyownedbyJamesEarlRayusedintheprosecution  ofthedecedentfortheallegedmurderofDoctorMartinLutherKingandinasmuch  asthatproceedinghasbeenterminatedthereisnolegalreasonforsaidpropertyto t bewithheldanylonger.`      TheAttorneyGeneralfiledanoticeofappearanceonbehalfoftheStateofTennessee.In 8"  thenoticeofappearance,theAttorneyGeneralassertedthattheStatehad ownershipandrightsof $#t! dispositionofthispropertybyvirtueofa1993decisionofthiscourt, see  Haysv.Montague ,860 $`" S.W.2d403(Tenn.Ct.App.1993),anda1994enactmentoftheGeneralAssembly, see Tenn.Code $L # Ann.10-7-510(Supp.1997).Thecitedstatutepurportedtoauthorizecriminalcourtclerksto %8!$ transfercustodyandownershipofrecords,documents,andphysicalevidenceintheirpossessionto &$"% highereducationalinstitutions,museums,libraries,orothernotforprofitcorporations,providedthat '#&  thetransferreditemsconstituted publicrecordsof historicalsignificanceandprovidedthat (#' certainotherconditionsweremet. See Tenn.CodeAnn.10-7-510(b)(Supp.1997).  #  1      ׀Afterthe   ExecutorfiledhiscomplaintagainsttheStateofTennessee,theStatefiledamotiontodismiss  pursuanttorule12oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Asgroundsforitsmotion,theState  contendedthattheExecutorsclaimagainstitwasbarredbythedoctrinesofsovereignimmunity,   resjudicata ,and/orcollateralestoppel. t   AfterconductingahearinginJune1999,theProbateCourtgrantedtheStatesmotionto L  dismiss.Initsorderofdismissal,theProbateCourtruledthattheExecutors claimagainstthe 8  StateofTennesseeseekingtoobtainpropertyallegedlyownedbythedecedentatthetimeofhis $ t death[was]barredbythedoctrineofsovereignimmunityand,further,thattheExecutorwas  `  collaterally_estopped_ԀfromseekingtoobtainsaidpropertybasedontheholdingoftheTennessee  L  CourtofAppealsin Haysv.Montague ,860S.W.2d403(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Onappeal,the  8  Executorcontendsthatbothoftheserulingswereinerror. $    WeagreewiththeStatesassertionthattheProbateCourtproperlydismissedtheExecutors   complaint,butonsomewhatdifferentgroundsthanthoserelieduponbytheProbateCourt. See     Continental_Cas_.Co.v.Smith ,720S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.1986)(indicatingthatcourt willaffirm   adecreecorrectinresult,butrenderedupondifferent,incomplete,orerroneousgrounds).The p gravamenoftheExecutorscomplaintwasthattheCriminalCourtClerkofShelbyCountyacquired \ possessionofcertainpropertybelongingtotheDecedentwhenthepropertywasusedasevidence H intheDecedentscriminalprosecutionandthat,inasmuchasthecriminalproceedingsterminated 4 upontheDecedentsdeath,nolegaljustificationexistedfortheCriminalCourtClerktoretainthis  p property.WeconcludethattheProbateCourtlackedtheauthoritytodeterminethedispositionof  \ propertyheldinthecustodyoftheCriminalCourtClerkaftertheDecedentscriminalproceedings H terminated. 4   AsourCourtofCriminalAppealsrecognizedinapreviousdecisioninvolvingoneofthe   Decedentspetitionsforpostconvictionrelief,thetrialcourt hastheinherentauthoritytodetermine  thecustodyandcontrolofevidenceheldinthe[trialcourt]clerksoffice. Rayv.State ,984S.W.2d  236,238(Tenn._Crim_.App.1997).Thisauthorityincludes therighttoexercisecontrolover  physicalevidenceafteracasehasbeenconcluded. Id .at238n.4.P  #  2       l Ї  Ordinarily,onecourtshouldnotinterferewithproperty ofwhichanothercourthascustody  orcontrolthroughthelattersofficerorrepresentative.21_C.J.S._Ԁ Courts 189,at224(1990).  Whenatrialcourtclerkpossessespropertyasanofficerofthetrialcourt,theclerkspossessionof  suchpropertyissubjecttothetrialcourtsorders. See Masseyv.Holmes ,227S.W.2d25,26(Tenn. t 1950).Oursupremecourthasexplainedthatthereasonforthisruleis ` 8  thatwhileproperty...isin custodialegis ,p  #  3      ׀theofficerholdingitisthemerehandof 8  thecourt;hispossessionisthepossessionofthecourt,andtointerferetherewithis $ t toinvadethejurisdictionofthecourtitself,anofficersosituatedbeingboundsolely  ` bytheordersandjudgmentsofthecourtwhosemereagentheis,andhavingnoright  L  tomakeanydispositionofsuch...propertywithouttheconsentofhisown&  court,  8  expressorimplied.$     Massey ,227S.W.2dat26(quoting4Am._Jur_.386,at795)(footnoteadded).'#?2     Thisdoctrineofnoninterferencealsoappliestocriminalcasesandtheprocedurethereunder.    See _Outerbridge_ԀHorseyCo.v.Martin ,120A.235,236(Md.1923); accord  Statev.Allen ,66 p N.W.2d830,83738(Neb.1954).Whenacriminalcourtoritsagentlawfullyobtainscustodyof \ property, topermitaninterferencewith[this]possessionwouldbetointerferewiththejurisdiction H ofthecourt,and[to]diverttheproperty,fromthepurposesforwhichitisheld. _Outerbridge_  HorseyCo. ,120A.at236.Whenproperty isin custodialegis ,andsubjecttotheorderofthecourt  havingcriminaljurisdictionoftheoffense,...neitherbyattachmentproceedingnorbyinjunction  shouldthecriminalcourtspowerofdispositionofthe[property]betakenawayorinterferedwith. t  Allen ,66N.W.2dat837.Asonecourtobserved, 8 @ [_t]he_Ԁcriminalcourt...,inthefirstinstance,has ` solecontrolofitsownprocessandoftheconductofitsownofficersthereunder. Statev.George , L  181_S.E._Ԁ713,715(W.Va.1935).Thus, [_o]fficers_Ԁactingunder,orpursuantto,theprocessofthat 8  courtareaccountabletothatcourtfortheirconduct. Id . $ t   Inaccordancewiththeforegoingauthorities,weconcludethattheProbateCourtlackedthe  L  authoritytoorderthedispositionofpropertyinthelawfulcustodyoftheCriminalCourtClerkof  8  ShelbyCounty.InasmuchastheProbateCourtlackedtheauthoritytoordertheCriminalCourt $  Clerktotransferpossessionoftheproperty,wefurtherconcludethatthecourtproperlydismissed   theExecutorscomplaintseekingthisrelief.     Weacknowledgethatin Lawrencev.Mullins ,449S.W.2d224(Tenn.1969),oursupreme   courtrecognizedaclaimantsrighttobringaseparatecivilactionseekingthereturnofpropertyin p thecustodyofthecourtclerk.Inthatcase,however,theclaimantfiledhisactionintheCircuitCourt \ of_Hardeman_ԀCounty,thesamecircuitcourtthatconductedthedefendantscriminalproceedings. H  See Lawrence ,449S.W.2dat225.Moreover,theclaimantinthatcasewasathirdpartywho 4 disputedthecriminaldefendantsownershipofthepropertyincustody. See  id .at228.Similarly,  p thecaseof Haysv.Montague ,860S.W.2d403(Tenn.Ct.App.1993),involvedathirdpartys  \ disputeastoownershipofthepropertyincustody.There,westressedthatourdecisionshould in H nowaybeinterpretedashavinganyeffectonthecustodialrightsofthecriminalcourtpursuantto 4 thatcourtsorders. Hays ,860S.W.2dat409.     The Lawrence and Hays decisionsareconsistentwithdecisionsofotherjurisdictionswhich  recognizethat, ifownershipisdisputed,theclaimantmustresorttoacivilremedytoestablishhis  claim. Stateexrel._Schillberg_ԁv.EverettDist.J.Ct. ,585P.2d1177,1180(Wash.1978); seealso    Moorev.State ,504N.E.2d586,58788(Ind.Ct.App.1987); Newmanv.Stuart ,597So.2d609, l 61415(Miss.1992); Statev._Earley_ ,210S.E.2d541,54243(N.C.Ct.App.1975).  #  4      ׀ [_T]itle_Ԁisnot X  tobedeterminedinacriminalproceeding,wheretheonlyproperpartiesarethedefendantor D! defendantsandthestateorothergovernmentalbodyinvolved. Stateexrel._Schillberg_ ,585P.2d 0"  at1180.Whenamotionforreturnofpropertyismadeinacriminalproceeding, [_t]he_Ԁpurposeof #l! the[subsequent]hearingistodeterminetherighttopossession,asbetweentheclaimantandthe $X" courtorofficershavingcustodyoftheproperty. Id . $D #  %0!$   Thepresentcasedoesnotinvolveathirdpartysclaimtothesubjectproperty.Rather,the  presentlawsuitconsistsofadisputeastotherighttopossessionofthesubjectpropertybetweenthe  DecedentsestateandtheCriminalCourtofficerhavingcustodyoftheproperty.Specifically,the  Decedentsestate,throughtheExecutor,seeksthereturnofthesubjectproperty,andtheCriminal t CourtClerkassertstherighttoretainand/ordisposeofthepropertybyvirtueofthe Haysv. ` Montague ,860S.W.2d403(Tenn.Ct.App.1993),decisionandTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection L  10-7-510(Supp.1997).  #  5      ׀Weholdthattheproperforuminwhichtoseekreturnofthesubject 8  propertyisthecourthavingcustodyofthatproperty. $ t ̀  Thetrialcourtsjudgmentisaffirmed,andthiscauseisremandedforfurtherproceedings  L  consistentwiththisopinion.CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheExecutor,JerryRay,forwhich  8  executionmayissueifnecessary.#XXXX|$#