WPC" U :V %bn 0[4= # Q \ w@d 0& 0D 0J 0TX 0^ 0h  0rr 0| 0` 0 1uvU, 0 BU,U* B)JDCs D3 AM6 0@v~v AO 1! 0D! D/;" Bj"<6X9`("Courier NewTTX- -3|x{<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@(d$  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XXXXXXXXԡ $HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0  iEj kelDmnopqerӀ((3r$ d!  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XvXXXXvXXXv      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernPp 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X\R\ d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d((((7Border 1dd'dxd-)C << G  !  #d#\RA'\   ''   YYY FILED'XJuly24,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  ("$      !#d#\RA'\     X  @ \RA'\     'Rule131,TennesseeSupremeCourtRules,providesthatineverycriminalcaseinwhichanadultischargedwithafelonyand thepartystatesthatheisfinanciallyunabletoobtaincounselanddesirestheappointmentofcounsel,itshallbethedutyofthejudgetoconductaninquiryandtomakeaproperfindingastotheindigencyoftheaccusedincompliancewiththeprovisionsofTenn.CodeAnn.4014202.Uponafindingofindigency,counselshallbeappointed.PtPtStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &&&Xd&#&&Xd#\RA'\   ݛ7vXXdd7    X ''ԜL+,);+'h|`  `Lߛ@ 'X INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE` XXSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  )      ) C.C.A.NO.01C019607CC00293  Appellant,    ) (No.7686Below)      ) GILESCOUNTY VS.      )      ) TheHon.WilliamB.CainSTEPHENJOHNABBOTT,  )      ) (StateAppealPursuanttoT.R.A.P.9)  Appellee.    )@ OPINION   ThismatterisbeforetheCourtuponthestate'sapplicationforaninterlocutoryappealpursuanttoT.R.A.P.9.Specifically,thestatechallengesthetrialcourt'sappointmentofcounselafteranoutsidepartyretainedcounselonbehalfoftheindigentdefendant.ThedefendantopposestheapplicationandrequeststhatthisCourteitherremandthemattertothetrialcourttosupplementtherecord,allowsupplementationoftherecordwithanattachedaffidavit,suspendtheRulesandallowdefensecounseltotestifyinthisCourt,ordismissthestatesappeal.  Havingreviewedthestatesapplicationandthedefendantsresponse,wefindthatthestatesapplicationiswelltakenandis,therefore,granted.Duetothenatureofthiscase,theCourtsuspendstherequirementsofT.R.A.P.9(e)andshallbaseitsdecisiononthepleadings.SeeRule2,TennesseeCourtofCriminalAppealsRules;T.R.A.P.2.  OnoraboutNovember15,1995,thedefendantwasindictedbyagrandjuryforfirstdegreemurder.Counsel,HershellKoger,wasappointedtorepresentthedefendantinjuvenileproceedings,andhewaslaterappointedinMarchof1996,torepresentthedefendantincircuitcourt.Itappearsthatprivatecounsel,LarryRoberts,wasretainedbyananonymous,nonfamilymembertoalsorepresentthedefendantduringjuvenileproceedings.TherecordisunclearwhetherMr.Robertswasinitiallyretainedtorepresentthedefendantinallsubsequentproceedings.Regardless,atsomepoint,hewasalsoretainedtorepresentthedefendantincircuitcourt.  OnJune26,1996,atapretrialmotionshearing,thestatemadeamotionthatappointedcounselberemovedpursuanttoRule13,TennesseeSupremeCourtRules,because withretainedcounsel,thetaxpayersofthestateofTennesseeshouldnotberequiredtopayappointedcounsel.  Indenyingthemotion,thetrialcourtstatedinpart:8  Rule13providesfortheappointmentandcompensationofcounselforindigentdefendants,andsetsforthafeestructure.Onlyonecounselhasbeenappointedfortheindigentdefendant.Thepurposeoftheruleistoprovideadequatecounselforthedefense,attheexpenseoftheState.8  Giventhecircumstancesofthecase,anyhourlysubmissionsmadebyMr.KogershouldbesubstantiallyreducedfromwhatwouldotherwisehavetobemadebythepresenceofMr.Roberts,astheCourtwillassumethattheyarenotsimplyduplicatingwork.  Onappeal,thestatesubmitsthatthedistrictattorneysrelianceonRule13 .   ׀wasinappropriate.Instead,thestateassertsthatthedefendantisnotentitledtoappointmentofcounselunderT.C.A.4014202(a),whichprovides:8 Inallfelonycases,iftheaccusedbenotrepresentedbycounsel,andthecourtdeterminesbythemannerprovidedinsubsection(b)thattheaccusedisanindigentpersonwhohasnotcompetentlywaivedtheaccusedsrighttocounsel,thecourtshallappoint[counsel]torepresenttheaccused.  Arguingthatthe matterseemsclearandthestatuteunambiguous,thestatecontendsthatthedefendantwasalreadyrepresentedwhencounselwasappointedbythetrialcourt,and,therefore,thedefendantfailedtomeetthefirstrequirementunderT.C.A.4014202(a)tobeeligibleforappointmentofcounsel.  Inresponse,thedefendantcontendsthattherecordbeforethisCourtisinadequatebecausethestatehaschangedthebasisofitsmotiononappeal.Specifically,thedefendantcontendsthathadhebeengivennotice,hewouldhavepresentedtestimonyregardingtheissueofwhenMr.RobertswasretainedinrelationshiptowhenMr.Kogerwasappointed.UnderthepresentrecordbeforethisCourt,thedefendantsubmitsthatitisunclearastowhetherMr.RobertswasretainedtorepresentthedefendantincircuitcourtpriortotheappointmentofMr.Koger.  Itiswellestablishedinthisstatethatapartymaynottakeonepositionregardinganissueinthetrialcourt,changeitsstrategyortheoryinmidstream,andadvocateadifferentgroundorreasoninthisCourt.SeeStatev.Aucoin,756S.W.2d705,715(Tenn.Crim.App.1988),cert.denied,489U.S.1084,109S.Ct.1541,103L.Ed.2d845(1989);Statev.Dobbins,754S.W.2d637,641(Tenn.Crim.App.1988).Inthepresentcase,thestateconcedesthatithaschangeditstheoryonappeal.Consequently,thetrialcourtwasnotgivenanopportunitytoconsiderproofrelativetothestatesargumentonappeal.Norwasthedefendantgivenanopportunitytopresenttestimonyonthisissue.  RegardlessofthefactthatweareunabletodeterminefromtherecordbeforeuswhetherMr.Robertswasretainedfirst,wedonotinterpretT.C.A.4014202(a)tomeanthatanindigentdefendantisnotentitledtoappointmentofcounselwhereanoutsidepartydecidestoretaincounselonbehalfoftheindigentdefendant.AlthoughthisissuehasnotbeenpreviouslyaddressedbyourCourts,asimilarissuewasconsideredinStatev.Gardner,626S.W.2d721(Tenn.Crim.App.1981).InGardner,thisCourtheldthatthe questionininquiriesastoinsolvencyisnotwhetherthedefendantsfriendsorspouseorrelativeshavetheabilityorreadinessorwillingnesstoprovidethefunds,butwhetherthedefendantpersonallyhasthemeans,orpropertywhichcanbeconvertedtothemeanstoemployanattorneytorepresenthim.Id.at724.  Basedontheabovediscussion,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinappointingcounseltorepresentthedefendant,whowasfoundtobeindigent,nordidthetrialcourterrindenyingthemotiontodismissappointedcounsel.Accordingly,thetrialcourtsappointmentofcounselisaffirmed.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtothestate.` X X      ________________________________      JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGECONCUR:_______________________________JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGE________________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE