ÿWPCd …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ 0l 0Dt w@¸ 0Jø 0TB 0^– 0hô 0r\ 0|Î 0†J 0Ð 1u` U,Õ 0dU,eU>‘ BÏU*ìB)DC? AM‚,Ï D3ûv~.vÓ¬ 0@ AO¿Æ 0DÔ D/ BG˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡»{s ppppdp3|x| ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó f g Eh i Ej k El m Ó€y z 2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd€-'Cþÿ << Gÿÿ "Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÔ€%ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌò òJune€17,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€%ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó$$$$'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÑ7€¶>XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€%ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ ` °œXÓÙ€€ÙßL€()';+'h|«ÿ` Å `€€Lß›à@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏCRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌà@ àOCTOBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNO.€œ02C01„9410„CC„00248›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà à)à àMcNAIRY€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JOSEPH€H.€WALKER,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJUDGE€ÌBRIAN€K.€CASS,à àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€(D.U.I.)Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)à à€€ÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌBrian€K.€Cass,€Pro€Seà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ2112€Prince€Placeà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSavannah,€Tennessee€38372à àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àChristina€S.€ShevalierÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Atty.€Gen.€&€ReporterÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RiceÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€Tennessee€38068Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEd€McDanielÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à300€Industrial€ParkÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSelmer,€Tennessee€38375Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóà àÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÓÓòòÌÌÓ Ð Óà@ àOPINIONóóÌOn€September€28,€1994,€the€appellant,€Brian€K.€Cass,€was€convicted€by€aÏMcNairy€County€jury€of€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant.€ÏThe€jury€assessed€a€$500.00€fine€against€the€appellant,€and€the€trial€court€sentencedÏhim€to€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days,€with€all€but€six€days€in€jail€suspended.€ÏThe€appellant,€proceeding€òòpro€seóó,€has€filed€this€appeal€alleging€a€multitude€of€trialÏcourt€errors,€some€of€which€he€contends€are€of€constitutional€proportions.€ÏSpecifically,€he€contends€that€he€was€subjected€to€an€invalid€search€and€seizure€atÏthe€time€of€his€arrest;€that€he€was€unconstitutionally€denied€the€right€of€counsel;€thatÏhe€was€denied€his€right€to€compulsory€process;€and€that€he€was€denied€hisÏconstitutional€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.€€Additionally,€the€appellant€contendsÏthat€the€trial€judge€and€the€district€attorney€general€and€her€assistants€had€noÍauthority€to€try€and€prosecute€him€for€the€offense€charged;€that€the€grand€juryÏindictment€against€him€was€defective;€and€that€the€petit€jury€hearing€the€case€wasÏunlawfully€constituted.€€ÌFollowing€our€review€of€the€record€in€this€case,€we€find€no€reversible€errorÏand€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€ÌAlthough€the€record€on€appeal€contains€voluminous€motions,€affidavits,Ïbriefs,€written€arguments,€and€other€material,€much€of€which€is€unintelligible,€theÏrecord€fails€to€include€a€transcript€of€the€trial€court€testimony.€€Instead,€a€statement€ofÏthe€evidence€was€approved€by€the€trial€court€and€made€part€of€the€record€pursuant€toÏRule€24€of€the€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€ÌAccording€to€the€statement€of€the€evidence,€the€appellant€was€observed€byÏOfficer€Johnny€Williams€of€the€Adamsville€Police€Department€on€January€30,€1994,Ïafter€midnight,€operating€a€motor€vehicle€at€an€excessive€rate€of€speed€within€theÏcorporate€limits€of€the€City€of€Adamsville.€€Williams€testified€that€he€drove€his€patrolÏcar€behind€the€speeding€vehicle,€engaged€the€blue€lights€on€his€patrol€car,€but€theÏspeeding€vehicle€failed€to€stop.€€Thereafter,€Williams€engaged€his€siren€but€again€theÏspeeding€vehicle€did€not€stop.€€After€the€speeding€vehicle€had€proceeded€outside€theÏcity€limits€of€Adamsville€and€had€passed€a€vehicle€traveling€in€the€same€direction,€itÏfinally€stopped.€€Officer€Williams€determined€that€the€appellant€was€the€driver€of€theÏvehicle€he€had€pursued.€€No€other€persons€were€in€the€vehicle.€€The€officer€asked€theÍappellant€to€step€out€of€the€vehicle€and€to€produce€his€driverððs€license.€€At€that€timeÏthe€officer€smelled€a€strong€odor€of€alcoholic€beverage€on€the€appellant,€observedÏbeer€in€the€appellantððs€automobile,€including€an€open€container€of€beer.€€The€officerÏtouched€the€open€container€of€beer€and€found€that€it€was€still€cool.€€Thereafter,€theÏappellant€was€given€a€field€sobriety€test,€including€the€one„leg„stand€test€and€theÏhorizontal€gaze€nystagmus,€both€of€which€the€appellant€failed.€€At€that€time€the€officerÏplaced€the€appellant€under€arrest€for€driving€under€the€influence€and€transported€himÏto€the€Adamsville€City€Hall,€where€the€appellant€consented€to€take€a€breathalyserÏtest.€€The€officer€testified€that€prior€to€administering€the€breathalyser€test€to€theÏappellant,€he€observed€the€appellant€in€excess€of€twenty€minutes€and€that€during€thatÏtime€the€appellant€did€not€have€any€other€drinks,€smoke,€chew€gum,€regurgitate,€or€doÏanything€that€would€affect€the€test€results.€€The€officer€testified€that€he€had€receivedÏtraining€with€the€T.B.I.€and€was€certified€to€administer€a€breathalyser€test€using€theÏIntoximeter€3000€machine.€€The€test€was€performed€in€accordance€with€the€standardsÏand€operating€procedures€promulgated€by€the€Forensic€Service€Division€of€the€T.B.I.€ÏThe€testing€instrument€used€was€certified€by€the€Forensic€Services€Division,€wasÏtested€regularly€for€accuracy,€and€was€working€properly€when€the€breath€test€wasÏperformed.€€The€machine€had€been€certified€in€November€1993,€and€again€in€MarchÏ1994,€and€was€found€to€be€in€good€working€order€both€times.€€No€maintenance€hadÏbeen€performed€on€the€machine€between€those€tests,€and€the€machine€was€workingÍproperly.€€The€results€of€the€breathalyser€test€indicated€that€the€appellant€had€a€bloodÏalcohol€level€of€.25€percent.€€No€other€witnesses€testified€at€the€trial,€and€the€juryÏconvicted€the€appellant€for€the€offense€of€driving€under€the€influence€based€upon€theÏforegoing€evidence.€€ÌThe€appellant€failed€to€file€a€motion€for€a€new€trial€following€his€conviction.€ÏRule€3(e)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure€provides:ÌÓÓà8 à.€.€.€that€in€all€cases€tried€by€a€jury,€no€issue€presented€forÏreview€shall€be€predicated€upon€error€in€the€admission€orÏexclusion€of€evidence,€jury€instructions€granted€or€refused,Ïmisconduct€of€jurors,€parties€or€counsel,€or€other€actionÏcommitted€or€occurring€during€the€trial€of€the€case,€or€otherÏground€upon€which€a€new€trial€is€sought,€unless€the€sameÏwas€specifically€stated€in€a€motion€for€new€trial;€otherwiseÏsuch€issues€will€be€treated€as€waived.ÌÌÓÓà àà àAlthough€the€appellant€is€representing€himself€and€is€not€a€licensed€and€practicingÏattorney,€he€is€nevertheless€required€to€abide€by€the€rules€of€appellate€procedure€inÏconnection€with€his€appeal.€€Therefore,€those€issues€raised€by€the€appellant€onÏappeal€which€do€not€involve€constitutional€claims€are€waived.€€However,€we€elect€toÏaddress€the€constitutional€issues€raised€by€the€appellant€since€the€protection€of€anÏaccusedððs€constitutional€rights€goes€to€the€very€heart€of€our€judicial€system.€€ÌThe€appellant€contends€that€his€Fourth€Amendment€right€to€be€free€fromÏunreasonable€searches€and€seizures€was€violated€when€the€officer€stopped€him,Ïsearched€his€car,€and€seized€an€open€container€of€beer€from€his€car.€€In€support€ofÍthis€contention,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€officer€had€not€taken€an€oath€of€office€asÏrequired€by€law,€failed€to€activate€his€siren€prior€to€the€stop,€and€that€his€search€of€theÏappellantððs€automobile€was€unreasonable€because€it€was€conducted€without€aÏwarrant.€€Rule€12(b)(3)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€requires€that€aÏmotion€to€suppress€illegally€obtained€evidence€be€filed€and€heard€prior€to€trial.€€TheÏrecord€in€this€case€does€not€show€that€the€appellant€filed€such€a€motion€or€that€aÏsuppression€hearing€was€requested€or€conducted€prior€to€trial.€€Therefore,€theÏappellant€has€waived€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Burtonóó,€751€S.W.2d€440€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988),€and€òòState€v.€McCrayóó,€614€S.W.2d€90€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1981).€ÏNevertheless,€we€address€the€appellantððs€issue€on€the€merits€and€conclude€that€theÏrecord€does€not€support€the€appellantððs€position.€€ÌFirst,€the€record€does€not€affirmatively€show€that€the€arresting€officer€hadÏfailed€to€take€his€oath€of€office.€€Assuming,€òòarguendoóó,€that€the€officer€had€not€taken€anÏoath€of€office,€we€know€of€no€rule€of€law€which€would€have€prevented€him€fromÏeffectuating€the€stop.€€Moreover,€the€only€evidence€introduced€at€trial€was€theÏtestimony€of€the€arresting€officer,€who€testified€that€he€did€activate€his€siren.€€Further,Ïfrom€the€testimony€of€the€officer,€it€is€apparent€that€the€open€container€of€beer€was€inÏplain€view.€€Under€these€circumstances€a€search€warrant€was€not€required€and€noÏFourth€Amendment€violation€occurred.ÌNext,€the€appellant€complains€that€he€was€denied€ð ðhis€constitutional€right€toÏthe€counsel€of€his€choice.ðð€€In€that€regard,€the€record€in€this€case€indicates€that€earlyÏon€in€the€proceedings€against€him,€the€appellant€filed€an€affidavit€of€indigency.€€In€hisÏsworn€affidavit,€the€appellant€took€the€position€that,€because€of€a€faulty€and€unlawfulÏmonetary€system€in€effect€in€the€United€States,€no€real€money€is€presently€inÏcirculation.€€Therefore,€he€maintained€the€view€that€he,€along€with€every€otherÏAmerican€citizen,€is€a€pauper.€€The€trial€court€made€no€finding€of€indigency.€€Even€ifÏthe€appellant€were€indigent,€however,€the€Constitution€does€not€afford€him€the€right€toÏbe€represented€by€the€counsel€ð ðof€his€choiceðð€at€state€expense.€€Nevertheless,€theÏappellant€requested€of€the€trial€court€that€he€be€allowed€to€be€represented€by€aÏresident€of€DeSoto€County,€Mississippi,€who€did€not€possess€a€law€license€to€practiceÏin€Tennessee,€but€who€held€himself€out€to€be€a€ð ðtrader€in€the€common€law.ðð€€TheÏappellant€had€executed€a€durable€power€of€attorney€authorizing€that€person€œto›Ïrepresent€him€in€this€matter.€€The€trial€court€wisely€refused€to€allow€an€unlicensedÏperson€to€practice€law€in€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„16„302Ï(1991€Repl.).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌNext,€the€appellant€argues€that€the€indictment€returned€against€him€wasÏdefective€because€the€grand€jury€was€unlawfully€constituted€and€because€the€districtÏattorney€general€and€her€assistants€appeared€before€the€grand€jury€without€properÏoaths€of€office.€€This€claim€is€without€merit.€€There€is€absolutely€no€proof€in€the€recordÍshowing€any€unlawfully€constituted€grand€jury.€€Also,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€asÏto€who€appeared€before€the€grand€jury,€with€the€exception€of€Officer€Johnny€Williams,Ïwhose€name€appears€as€a€witness€on€the€indictment.€€Further,€the€appellantððsÏargument€that€the€district€attorney€general€acted€without€authority€of€law€inÏprosecuting€him€since€she€had€no€oath€of€office€is€ludicrous.€€Not€only€does€theÏrecord€fail€to€establish€such€a€claim,€it€affirmatively€appears€in€the€record€that€theÏdistrict€attorney€general€who€prosecuted€this€case€was€properly€administered€herÏoath€of€office€by€a€member€of€this€Court.€€ÌThe€appellant€next€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutionallyÏguaranteed€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.€€There€is€not€one€shred€of€evidence€in€theÏrecord€regarding€the€composition€of€the€petit€jury.€€The€record€contains€only€baldÏassertions€of€bias€in€the€appellantððs€brief€and€affidavits.€€The€statement€of€evidenceÏfiled€in€this€case€in€lieu€of€a€trial€transcript€contains€no€record€of€the€òòvoir€direóó,€theÏchallenges,€if€any,€concerning€any€prospective€jurors,€or€any€showing€that€the€juryÏpool€was€in€any€way€constitutionally€infirm.€€This€issue€is€without€merit.€€ÌThe€appellant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€denied€himÏrelevant€discoverable€material,€which€he€contends€was€set€forth€on€numerousÏsubpoenas€duces€tecum€which€were€quashed€by€the€trial€court.€€In€this€appeal,Ïhowever,€the€appellant€does€not€specify€what€discoverable€material€he€was€denied,Íand€without€a€specific€allegation,€this€Court€cannot€determine€what€material€heÏclaims€he€was€denied.€€Accordingly,€the€appellant€has€waived€this€issue.€€ÌAlthough€we€are€uncertain,€we€assume€that€the€appellant€is€also€challengingÏthe€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence€based€upon€his€issue€presented€on€appealÏwhich€reads:ÌÓÓà8 à3.€€Did€the€Trial€court€err€in€allowing€Evidence€from€theÏððArrest€Reportðð€and€ððArrest€Warrantðð€in€this€case,€which€setÏforth€the€first€time€that€the€arresting€officer€observed€thisÏAppellant€at€1:20€a.m.€and€then€the€court€allowed€anÏIntoximeter€3000€printout€tape€to€be€admitted€intoÏEvidence,€with€the€time€on€the€said€tape€of€testing€at€1:04Ïa.m.€and€1:05€a.m.,€which€was€15€to€16€minutes€ò òbeforeó óÏthe€arresting€officer€first€observed€this€Appellant€on€HwyÏ117€South€which€was€testified€to€by€the€officer€and€markedÏas€Evidence,€which€is€part€of€this€Record?ÌÌÓÓà àà àAgain,€since€no€motion€for€a€new€trial€was€filed,€which€would€have€afforded€the€trialÏcourt€the€opportunity€to€correct€any€alleged€errors€made€in€the€prosecution€of€thisÏcase,€this€issue€has€been€waived€on€appeal.€€Although€waived,€we€haveÏnevertheless€reviewed€the€record€and€conclude€that€the€convicting€evidence€wasÏoverwhelming.€€òòSeeóó€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€317,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,€2789Ï(1979);€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994);€T.R.A.P.€13(e).€€This€issueÏis€without€merit.ÌIn€addition€to€contending€that€the€prosecuting€attorney€acted€without€legalÏauthority€by€failing€to€have€taken€an€oath€of€office,€the€appellant€likewise€challengesÍthe€legal€authority€of€the€trial€judge€for€the€same€reason.€€In€essence,€the€appellantÏargues€that€Tennessee€law€requires€that€a€member€of€the€state€judiciary€take€aÏprescribed€oath€of€office,€and€that€a€copy€of€that€oath€be€maintained€in€the€office€ofÏthe€Secretary€of€State€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€€He€contends,€by€way€of€affidavit,€thatÏhe€and€members€of€his€family€have€checked€with€the€office€of€Secretary€of€State€andÏhave€been€advised€that€no€oath€of€office€for€Judge€Walker€is€of€record€at€that€location.€ÏMoreover,€he€also€contends€that€the€entire€trial€jury€and€the€entire€grand€jury€wereÏlikewise€without€proper€oaths€of€office.€€The€appellant€has€waived€this€issue€by€failingÏto€make€a€single€citation€to€the€record€as€required€by€Rule€10(b)€of€the€Rules€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals.€€As€previously€noted,€the€appellant€has€also€waived€thisÏissue€for€failing€to€file€a€motion€for€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€T.R.A.P.€3(e).€€ÌFinally,€the€appellant€contends€that€he€was€denied€his€constitutionallyÏguaranteed€right€of€compulsory€process€by€the€action€of€the€trial€court€in€quashingÏcertain€subpoenas€filed€by€the€appellant.€€We€conclude€that€this€issue€is€withoutÏmerit.€€As€the€State€correctly€points€out€in€its€brief,€the€Sixth€Amendment€constitutionalÏright€to€the€compulsory€attendance€of€witnesses€is€not€an€unlimited€right.€€òòState€v.ÏSmithóó,€639€S.W.2d€677€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€If€the€court€concludes€that€theÏtestimony€of€a€witness€sought€to€be€subpoenaed€would€be€inadmissible€at€trial,€theÏcourt€is€not€required€to€issue€the€subpoena.€€òòSmithóó€at€680.€€In€this€case€the€trial€court,Ïon€its€own€motion,€found€that€many€of€the€subpoenas€duces€tecum€sought€to€beÍissued€by€the€appellant€were€for€persons€and€things€which€were€irrelevant€to€the€guiltÏor€innocence€or€punishment€of€the€appellant.€€For€example,€the€appellant€sought€toÏsubpoena€Betty€Henry,€foreman€of€the€McNairy€County€Grand€Jury,€to€appear€at€trialÏand€bring€with€her€the€minutes€of€the€grand€juryððs€action€with€regard€to€the€indictmentÏin€this€case.€€Whether€or€not€the€indictment€was€valid€would€have€been€a€question€ofÏlaw€for€the€trial€court,€not€for€the€jury,€and€accordingly,€should€have€been€addressedÏby€the€court€in€a€pretrial€motion.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€12(b)(2).€€Similarly,€the€appellantÏsought€to€issue€subpoenas€upon€the€district€attorney€general,€all€of€her€assistants,Ïand€the€trial€judge€himself€to€appear€at€trial€and€bring€with€them€a€copy€of€theirÏmembership€with€the€Tennessee€Bar€Association,€the€Tennessee€Bar€AssociationÏCorporate€Charter,€and/or€other€certified€copies€of€their€oaths€of€office.€€Clearly,€suchÏevidence€was€immaterial€to€any€issue€at€trial.€€ÌThe€appellant€also€sought€to€subpoena€two€city€commissioners€for€the€City€ofÏAdamsville€to€bring€with€them€records€so€as€to€be€prepared€to€respond€to€questionsÏconcerning€the€amount€of€taxpayersðð€money€allocated€for€funding€of€the€AdamsvilleÏPolice€Department€for€a€year,€the€amount€of€revenue€taken€in€by€the€AdamsvilleÏPolice€Department,€and€to€produce€certified€copies€of€their€oaths€of€office.€€We€agreeÏwith€the€trial€court€that€such€evidence€was€immaterial€and€irrelevant.€€ÌThe€appellant€also€sought€to€subpoena€Arzo€Carson,€former€director€of€theÏTennessee€Bureau€of€Investigation.€The€subpoena€directed€him€to€bring€recordsÍreflecting€his€education€and€qualifications€and€to€be€prepared€to€discuss€howÏinstructors€are€taught€to€use€every€intoximeter€and€simulator€in€the€State€ofÏTennessee€for€the€prior€five„year€period.€€Again,€the€subpoena€called€for€immaterialÏevidence.€€Finally,€in€an€apparent€effort€to€secure€expert€testimony€at€no€cost,€theÏappellant€issued€a€subpoena€to€John€C.€Buckingham,€Jr.,€president€of€Intoximeters,ÏInc.,€and€a€resident€of€St.€Louis€Missouri,€together€with€Jack€Singleton,€areaÏrepresentative€for€that€company,€and€a€resident€of€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€to€eachÏbring€with€them€records€and€materials€so€as€to€be€prepared€to€testify€regarding€theÏuse€of€any€scientific€instrument€for€the€testing€of€the€presence€of€alcohol€inÏindividuals.€€ÌIt€is€clear€that€the€trial€court€acted€properly€in€quashing€the€foregoingÏsubpoenas,€and€that€the€appellantððs€constitutional€right€to€compulsory€process€wasÏnot€violated.€€ÌHaving€reviewed€the€entire€record€in€this€cause€and€considered€each€of€theÏissues€raised€by€the€appellant,€we€find€that€no€reversible€error€has€occurred€in€thisÏcause,€and€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.ÌÌ€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€M.€BARKERÌÌÌÓ  ÓCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOE€B€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€(Not€participating)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JUDGE