WPC% U:V % 0w@r 4  N 0 # 0DC 0J 0T 0^% 0h 0r 0|] 0 0_ 1uU,d 0d BU,U*=B)gDC AM v~@v D3# 0@# AO$S$ 0D% D/]% B%,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  DDUD(eӀԡ 3|xexpunctionRiverbendVanzant((3l$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7    `   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`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G  !  #d#!    ! \RA'\#d#   !   YYY FILED!XJuly26,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#!     \RA'\#d#    $       Thepurposeoftheexpunctionstatuteistopreventacitizenfrombearingthestigmaofhavingbeenchargedwithacriminaloffense,wherehewasacquittedofthechargeorprosecutionofthechargewasabandoned.Statev.Doe,588S.W.2d549,552(Tenn.1979).Inaccordancewiththispurpose,oursupremecourt,inDoe,interpretedthe publicrecordsprovisionoftheexpunctionstatutetoincludedistrictattorneygeneralandpolicefilesregardlessofwhethersuchrecordsbeforpublicinspectionorforinternaluse.Doe,588S.W.2dat552.Inlightofthisdecision,theTennesseelegislatureamendedtheexpunctionstatutetoexemptcertainlawenforcementagencyrecordsanddistrictattorneyfilesthatarenotopentothepublic. The[amended]statutewasexplicitlydesignedtooverrulethatportionofthe[Doe]opinionthatwouldprohibitlawenforcementagenciesandprosecutingattorneysfrommaintainingtheirowninternal,confidentialrecords....TherewasconcernthatDoewastoofarreachingandwouldhamperlawenforcement.Doe,No.155.  !#d#!     \RA'\#d#    $       Notranscriptisincludedintherecord,presumablybecausenohearingwasheldontheappellant'spetitionforexpunction.Accordingly,nofactsarebeforeustoreview.TherecorddoesreflectthattheappellantiscurrentlyconfinedattheRiverbendMaximumSecurityfacilityoftheDepartmentofCorrection.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco 'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &  Xd&#  Xd#!     \RA'\#Xd##Xd#    L$%#;+'h|`   `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE@ APRILSESSION,1996 STATEOFTENNESSEE ,  )     ) No.01C019508CC00271 Appellee   )     ) GRUNDYCOUNTYvs.     )     ) Hon.J.CurtisSmith,Judge NEILEDWARDBRIDGES , )     ) (ExpunctionofRecords) Appellant   )FortheAppellant:    FortheAppellee:FrancisW.Pryor,Jr.   CharlesW.BursonAsst.PublicDefender   AttorneyGeneralandReporterP.O.Box220 Jasper,TN37347    MichelleL.Lehmann      AssistantAttorneyGeneral       CriminalJusticeDivision      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493                JamesMichaelTaylor      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      ThomasD.Hembree      Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral      2ndFloor,LawyersBuilding      Jasper,TN37347OPINIONFILED:򀀀AFFIRMED DavidG.Hayes Judge@ OPINION  Theappellant,NeilEdwardBridges,appealsfromanorderoftheCircuitCourtofGrundyCountydenyingexpunctionofrecordsmaintainedbythedistrictattorneygeneralandthepolicedepartment.Theappellantalsoraisestheissueofwhetherdistributionofinformationfromeitherthefilesofthedistrictattorneyorthepolicetootherstateagencies,includingtheDepartmentofCorrectionandBoardofParoles,violateshisconstitutionalrightsandiscontrarytothelegislativeintentoftheexpunctionstatute. Afterareviewoftherecord,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.@ BACKGROUND  OnJuly8,1991,theappellantwasindictedfortheoffensesofaggravatedburglaryandtheftofproperty.OnOctober25,1993,theStateenteredanolleprosequiastothesecharges.OnMarch14,1994,theappellantfiledapetitionforexpunctionoftherecords.Thepetitionrequestedthedestructionofallpublicrecordsrelatingtothedismissedcharges,includingrecordsofthedistrictattorneygeneral,policedepartment,and"documents...thatwereforwardedtootherstateagencies,TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,TennesseeBoardofParoles,etc."OnJune19,1995,thetrialcourtorderedexpunctionofallcourtrecordsinthenolledcase,finding,however,thattheappellantwasnotentitledtoexpunctionofthedistrictattorneyorpolicedepartmentrecords.@ ANALYSIS  TennesseeCodeAnn.4032101providesasfollows:8 (a)(1)"[a]llpublicrecordsofapersonwhohasbeenchargedwithamisdemeanororafelony,andwhichchargehasbeendismissed,...shall,uponpetitionbysaidpersontothecourthavingjurisdictioninsuchpreviousaction,beremovedanddestroyed."8 (a)(3)Uponpetitionofadefendantinthecourtwhichenteredanolleprosequiinhiscase,thecourtshallorderallpublicrecordsexpunged.8 (b)"Publicrecords,"forthepurposeofexpunctiononly,doesnotincludearresthistories,investigativereports,intelligenceinformationoflawenforcementagencies,orfilesofdistrictattorneysgeneralthataremaintainedasconfidentialrecordsforlawenforcementpurposesandarenotopenforinspectionbymembersofthepublic...Thus,thestatute,onitsface,excludes"arresthistories,investigativereports,intelligenceinformationoflawenforcementagencies,orfilesofdistrictattorneysgeneral"fromexpunction,whenmaintainedasconfidentialrecordsandwhennotopenforpublicinspection.Statev.Norris,684S.W.2d650,653(Tenn.Crim.App.1984);Statev.Doe,No.155(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Aug.6,1986). TheappellantconcedesthatTenn.CodeAnn.4032101(b)andcaselawdonotpermitexpunctionofdistrictattorneygeneralfilesorpolicefiles.However,heurgesthatthebetterruleoflawwouldbethatallrecordsshouldbeexpunged.Giventhelegislativepurposeofthestatute &   ,wedeclinetheinvitationtosorule.Thiscourt,construingthelanguageofthestatuteandgivingititsordinaryandnaturalmeaning,explicitlyheldthattherecordsofthedistrictattorneyandpolicewereexemptfromexpunction.Doe,No.155.Thisissueiswithoutmerit. Inhissecondissue,theappellantquestionstheconstitutionalimplicationsarisingfromthedistributionofinformationcontainedinthefilesofalawenforcementagencytootherstateagencies.Moreover,heassertsthatdisseminationofsuchinformationiscontrarytothelegislativeintentoftheexpunctionstatute.Theappellantmakesnoargumentnorcitestoanyauthorityinsupportofthisposition.Theissueis,therefore,waived.Tenn.R.App.P.27(a)(7),(h);Tenn.Ct.Crim.R.App.10(b).Moreover,thereisnothingintherecordwhichremotelyindicatesthatthedistrictattorneygeneralorpolicehavedistributedinformationfromtheirfilestotheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,BoardofParoles,oranyotherstateagency.Noristherebeforeusanyallegationthattheappellanthassufferedanydeprivationoflibertyasaresultofanyimproperdisseminationofinformation. '   ׀Thus,therecorddoesnotestablishthattheappellanthasstandingtoraisethisconstitutionalissueorthattheissueisripeforconsideration.Statev.Vanzant,659S.W.2d816,819(Tenn.Crim.App.1983)(holdingthatapersonlacksstandingtochallengetheconstitutionalityofastatutoryprovisionunlesstheprovisionheclaimstobedeficienthasbeenusedtodeprivehimofhisrights). Fortheforegoingreasons,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.     ____________________________________     DAVIDG.HAYES,JudgeCONCUR:_______________________________JOEB.JONES,PresidingJudge_______________________________JOHNH.PEAY,Judge