WPC [FsAsA"Ǔr+vDxq [YՆbLb%wkHVhR'4sbO>i^W7&]rVKFabJEp ?Yn 5mUFoA \a2 Gt3D/$hESўmA I8f!iPow?HrͲuXTSzXz6̑ۛmQZZ&ir7o ڽPie9N9 p ,Xv,`!)`NtYG +zf\`TOc<*a %DBlSAOՅK9ֹpTﵱ}o<FmϘQi&xeUo^zGGX#2i-#"eE!̈Fm.)>>*܃L?l27ǰ"pקi%ŜdHj8XLbMk?K+U>Z 0n 0 0s 0D D+ Aw@ B D3 C  ! 0- U * ( @ X 0( AQF  B+ 0C7 0: B+&Q 0a#!UN8 %M(N^ w4 m\  `&Times New Roman<:Default ParaXXX U*X..      !XXX!XXXX!X  _ @ (2U$ >!X..      !XXX!XXXX!X   U)X..      !XXX!XXXX!X  _ @ (2U$ >!X..      !XXX!XXXX!X  (2U$ >!X..      !XXX!XXXX!X  'dxdo&"D&raw Object Text <C HKKKK d 'dxddd  U"..      !XXX!XXXX!X  _ @   oXXao FILEDXTXa  September10,1999Cecil_Crowson_,Jr. xx AppellateCourtClerk     XXXXT(2U$ >!X..      !XXX!XXXX!X  %2A`Arial   *X..      !XXX!XXXX!X   @  @ _-XX_- ZJFzlx p @X@Exx   %% %%  XXXXXXԃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($C<< c  "..      !XXX!XXXX!X   @   X  3  B  C       )X..      !XXX!XXXX!X   @  @ _-XX_- ZJFzlx p @X@Exx   %% %%  XXXXXX "..      !XXX!XXXX!X   @   X  3    'Single1 d($      >!X..      !XXX!XXXX!X  _ @ x  &Š%XX&%%&Š `   1  Baseduponstatementsmadebythetrialcourtinthehearinginthismatter,itappearsthat x theinitialwarrantsmaynothavebeenserveduponthedefendantbecauseofcertainbureaucratic K problemswhichhadoccurredinothercasesaswell.XX%&XXXX(2]$ >!X..      !XXX!XXXX!X  XXXX  0  'Single2  d#|x(>$X..      !XXX!XXXX!XHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(uH Z6Times New Roman Regular!Xq8'L {Z='' (%1!cdU >!X..      !XXX!XXXX!X  _    TR[A'3'A' Legal3'T  _ uea~`  p Xdddd dd@E` rr|dR _XTXXX_INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  ATNASHVILLEJUNE1999SESSION  STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     )     `     h     ) p C.C.A.No.01C019809CR00359     ` Appellant,   h     )    `     h     ) p DavidsonCounty x  v. `     h     ) ^   `     h     ) p HonorableFrankG.Clement,Jr.,Judge D  JIMMYFERGUSON, h     ) *z   `     h     ) p (StateAppeal) `  ` Appellee.   h     ) F FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE: Z PAULG.SUMMERS h      p JERREDA.CREASY &v AttorneyGeneral&Reporter     p 176SecondAvenueNorth,Suite500  \  `     h      p Nashville,TN37201ELIZABETHB.MARNEYAssistantAttorneyGeneral425FifthAvenueNorthNashville,TN372430493VICTORS.JOHNSON,IIIDistrictAttorneyGeneralEDWARDS.RYANAssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral222SecondAvenueNorth,Suite500Nashville,TN372011649OPINIONFILED:________________________________REVERSED;INDICTMENTREINSTATED :5< ALANE.GLENN,JUDGEXXXX  _-XX_- OPINIONXX        ` OnJuly6,1994,thedefendant,JimmyFerguson,wasinvolvedinaonecar n accident.Warrantswereissuedthatday,chargingthedefendantwithdrivingunderthe :  influenceanddrivingonarevokedlicense.HewasindictedforthesechargesonMarch  V 30,1998.Thereisnoindicationintherecordthatthestateattemptedtoservethese  "  warrantsuntilMarch30,1998,whenthedefendantwasarrestedonothercharges.The   defendantwasarraignedandpleadednotguiltyonMay14,1998.Thetrialcourthelda j  hearingonJuly30,1998,uponthedefendantsmotiontodismissthetwocount 6 indictmentonthegroundshisrighttoaspeedytrialandtodueprocessofthelawhad R beenviolatedandthedelaybetweenissuingthewarrantsandservingthewarrants  constitutedunjustifiabledelaybythestate.Attheconclusionofthehearing,thetrial  courtdismissedtheindictment,andthestateappealed.Baseduponourreviewofthe f recordandofapplicablelaw,wereversethedecisionofthetrialcourtandreinstatethe 2 indictment. N  ` Thetrialcourtheldathoroughhearinginthismatter,allowingattorneysforboth !  thestateandthedefensetopresentargumentsinsupportoftheirrespectivepositions. b#" Baseduponstatementsofcounselduringthishearing,itappearsthatthestatesproof .%~ $ regardingthedefendantsallegedintoxicationwouldnothaveincludedresultsfroma &J"& breathalcoholtest.Asaresult,eyewitnesstestimonyofthosewhoobservedthe ($( defendantatthetimeoftheallegedoffensewouldbecomeimportanttobothsidesin *%* establishingtheirpositions.However,defensecounselcandidlyadmittedtothetrial ^,', courtthatthepersonswhowerewithhisclientshortlybeforethedefendantoperated *.z). thevehicleandwasarrestedconsistedofthedefendantsexwifeandsomeofher /F+0 familymembers,personsdescribedas hostiletothedefendant.Thus,itappearsthat 1-2 thedelaydidnotcausebeneficialeyewitnesstestimonytobelosttothedefense. 3.4    DISCUSSIONOFLAW &7v28     ` Attheconclusionofthehearing,thetrialcourtdismissedtheindictmentbasedon 9(5;       thedefendantsclaimthatthealmostfouryeardelaybetweenthetimehewascharged  andthetimehewasindictedconstitutedadenialofhisrighttoaspeedytrial.Thecourt | acknowledgedthatastrictapplicationofthelawrequireddenialofthedefendants H motiontodismiss.However,thecourtstatedthattheadministrativedelayandthe  d absenceofvictimsinvolvedinthechargedoffenseswarranteddismissalofthe  0 indictment.Despitethelongdelay,theexistinglawapplicabletotheSixthAmendment    righttoaspeedytrialandtheFifthAmendmentrighttodueprocessconflictwiththetrial x  courtsdecisiontodismissthechargesagainstthedefendant.Forthisreason,we D  reversethedecisionofthetrialcourtandreinstatetheindictment. `  ` Indeterminingiftherehasbeenaviolationoftheconstitutionalrighttoaspeedy  trial,onlythetimebetweenthecommencementofadversarialproceedingsandthe t commencementofthetrialwillbeconsidered;while,indeterminingiftherehasbeena @ violationofconstitutionaldueprocess,thetimebetweenthecommissionoftheoffense  \ andthecommencementofprosecutionwillalsobeconsidered.Statev._Carico_,968 ( S.W.2d280,284(Tenn.1998).   ` Eitheraformalgrandjuryactionortherestraintsofarrestarerequiredtotrigger <#" therighttoaspeedytrialundertheSixthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution %X $ andArticleI,9oftheTennesseeConstitution.Statev.Utley,956S.W.2d489,492 &$"& (Tenn.1997)(citingUnitedStatesv.Marion,404U.S.307,320,92S.Ct.455,463,30 (#( _L.Ed_.2d468(1971)).Althoughthestatedidnotindictthedefendantforalmostfour l*%* yearsaftertheoffense,thedelaybetweentheindictmentandthedismissalofthe 8,', chargesagainstthedefendantwasonlyfourmonths.Thesefactsdonotevidencea .T). violationoftherighttoaspeedytrial. / +0  ` Adelaybetweenthecommissionofanoffenseandtheinitiationofadversarial h3.4 proceedingsmayraisedueprocessconcernsundertheFifthAmendmenttotheUnited 4506 StatesConstitutionandArticleI,9oftheTennesseeConstitution.Utley,956S.W.2d 7P28 at495.Todeterminewhetheradueprocessviolationhasoccurredwhenthestateis 84: awarethatanoffensehasbeencommitted,thedefendantmustestablish:(1)adelay  hasoccurred;(2)thedelaycausedprejudicetothedefendant'srighttoafairtrial;and, | (3)thestatecausedthedelaytoobtainatacticaladvantage.Utley,956S.W.2dat495 H (citingStatev.Gray,917S.W.2d668,671(Tenn.1996)).  d  l<`  ` Inthecasesubjudice,obviouslyadelayhasoccurred.Themostimportant    question,althoughnotdeterminativeineverycase,iswhetherthedelaycausedany x  prejudicetothedefendant._Carico_,968S.W.2dat285.Thetrialcourtspecificallyfound D  thatnoprejudicehadresultedfromthealmostfouryeardelay.Areviewoftherecord ` revealsnothingtoalterthisconclusion.Additionally,noevidenceexiststhatthestate , causedthedelaytoobtainatacticaladvantage.   1      ׀Thus,thedefendantwasnotdeprived  ofdueprocessasaresultofthealmostfouryeardelay. t  ` Forthesereasons,wereversethedecisionofthetrialcourtandreinstatethe  \ indictment. (  `     h     ________________________________________ p!   `     h     ALANE.GLENN,JUDGE V"! CONCUR: %X $ ____________________________________ )$) JOSEPHM._TIPTON_,JUDGE l*%* ____________________________________ .:*/ JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE / +0  `   XXXX