ÿWPCË …#†VUNÜ %* 0 (04Xlb{ 0ˆƒ 0D 0JO 0T™ 0^í 0hK 0r³ 0|% 0†¡ 0' 1u· U,, 0dX U,¼ Bè U>U *CB)mDC– AMÙ D3&=Yœ– 0@2qrã­äv~‘vÓ AOâÆ1 0D÷ 0D; D/ B®˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0ºÖP _>¶ ×K&` ÚP(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡o„p @ d3|xÔ- ù-(8(2R$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ4°ÒÒ„°Òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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 d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€-(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ$$$$'ÿÿdxd 3Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€&XÔÌÌApril€26,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ’Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔWe€note€that€the€DUI€statute€provides€for€a€"third€or€subsequent"€violation€rather€thanÏDUI€(5th€Offense).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403€(1993€&€Supp.€1995).Ì("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò gÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔThe€record€also€shows€that€the€district€attorney's€representative€was€not€in€the€courtroomÏwhen€these€negotiations€took€place.Ì ÷Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔòòòòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€S.€Ct.€10.óóÌ £Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€&ÔÔ€&ôÔThe€petitioner€is€no€neophyte€to€the€legal€system.€€In€1990,€he€was€similarly€charged€withÏDUI,€which€apparently€was€"amended"€to€reckless€driving.€€He€has€been€in€this€situation€before.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA:Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA:Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€##X„d&ÓÑ#€##Xd#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€&ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€6GXXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÙ€€ÙßL€)+(;+'h|` ç `€€Lßà àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINALÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓAT€NASHVILLEÌÓ  ÓÌÓ  ÓFEBRUARY€1996€SESSIONó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌà àÓ ` ®DÓò òÌÓ` cÓMICHAEL€A.€FOURNIER,à àó ó)€ÌÓ ` ¸ cÓà àà à)€C.C.A.€No.€01C01„9502„CC„00046€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àAppellant,à à)Ìà àà à)€Marshall€CountyÌV.€€€€€€€à à)Ìà àà à)€Hon.€Charles€Lee,€JudgeÌò òà àó óà à)ò òÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,ó óà à)€(Post„Conviction)€à àà à)€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àAppellee.à à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ` ÓFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌAndrew€Jackson€Dearing,€IIIà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ117€S.€Main€Street,€Suite€101à àAttorney€General€&€Reporter€ÌShelbyville,€TN€€€37160Ìà àWilliam€David€BridgersÌà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌà àWilliam€Michael€McCownÌà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àWeakley€E.€BarnardÌà àAsst.€Dist.€Attorney€GeneralÌà àMarshall€County€CourthouseÌà àLewisburg,€TN€€€37091€€€ÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€___________________ÌÌÌò òRECKLESS€DRIVING€JUDGMENT€VACATED;ó óÌò òREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€WITH€INSTRUCTIONSÌó óÌÌò òPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,ó óÌJudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àò òO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÌÓ ` °§XÓÌÓÓà àThe€petitioner,€Michael€A.€Fournier,€was€tried€in€the€general€sessionsÏcourt€for€Marshall€County€on€a€warrant€charging€him€with€driving€under€theÏinfluence€(fifth€offense).× ƒ, ××  ×€€Following€the€proof,€the€judge€took€the€case€underÏadvisement.€€Two€weeks€later,€the€judge€announced€that€he€had€found€theÏpetitioner€guilty€of€DUI.€€Petitioner's€counsel€was€shocked€because€he€had€hadÏòòexóó€òòparteóó€communications€with€the€judge€and€thought€the€judge€was€going€to€findÏthe€petitioner€not€guilty.€€Counsel€approached€the€bench€and€reminded€theÏjudge€of€his€earlier€statement.€€The€judge€agreed€to€find€the€petitioner€guilty€ofÏreckless€driving€and€noted€such€on€the€warrant.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€did€not€appeal€the€conviction€to€the€circuit€court€but€laterÍfiled€a€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€attacking€the€reckless€driving€conviction.€ÏFollowing€a€hearing,€the€circuit€judge€dismissed€the€petition.€€From€thatÏdismissal€he€appeals€claiming€that€the€trial€judge€erred€in€dismissing€theÏpetition.€€We€reverse€and€remand€with€instructions€as€set€out€below.ÌÌà àThe€state€initially€argues€that€the€petitioner€has€waived€his€right€to€post„conviction€relief.€€A€ground€for€relief€is€waived€"€if€the€petitioner€knowingly€andÏunderstandingly€failed€to€present€it€for€determination€in€any€proceeding€before€aÏcourt€of€competent€jurisdiction€in€which€the€ground€could€have€been€presented."€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112(b)(1)€(1990).€€Here,€the€petitioner€was€convictedÏof€reckless€driving€in€general€sessions€court.€€He€failed€to€exercise€his€right€toÏappeal€to€the€Marshall€County€Circuit€Court€for€a€trial€òòdeóó€òònovoóó.€€However,Ïbecause€this€defense€of€waiver€was€not€presented€prior€to€the€hearing,€the€trialÏjudge's€hearing€on€the€merits€"pretermitted€consideration€of€the€procedural€bar"Ïand€likely€precluded€application€of€this€waiver€defense.€€òòCoker€v.€Stateóó,€911ÏS.W.2d€357,€366€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€Thus,€we€will€address€his€petition€onÏits€merits.Ì€Ìà àThe€testimony€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€revealed€that€defenseÏcounsel€and€the€general€sessions€judge€spoke€briefly€at€a€restaurant€some€timeÏafter€the€judge€had€taken€the€petitioner's€case€under€advisement.€€CounselÏunderstood€the€judge€to€say€that€he€was€going€to€find€the€petitioner€not€guilty€ofÏthe€DUI€charge.€€However,€when€the€court€reconvened€some€two€weeks€later€forÍthe€announcement€in€the€petitioner's€case,€the€judge€said€he€had€found€theÏpetitioner€guilty€of€DUI.€€Somewhat€stunned,€counsel€remarked€that€he€"justÏabout€choked"€when€the€announcement€was€made.€€Unwittingly,€counsel€hadÏtold€the€petitioner€that€the€judge€was€not€going€to€find€him€guilty.€€DefenseÏcounsel€approached€the€bench€and€reminded€the€trial€judge€of€his€earlier€òòexóóÏòòparteóó€statement.€€He€also€informed€the€judge€that€he€had€relayed€the€substanceÏof€their€conversation€to€his€client.ÌÌà àThe€general€sessions€judge€testified€at€the€post„conviction€hearing€thatÏhe€told€counsel€the€earlier€statement€was€not€on€the€record€and€had€beenÏmisunderstood.€€He€added€that€he€had€not€intended€to€give€counsel€theÏimpression€that€his€client€would€be€found€not€guilty.€€However,€because€it€wasÏhis€policy€"not€to€make€attorneys€look€bad,"€he€agreed€to€find€the€petitioner€guiltyÏof€reckless€driving.€€Though€the€testimony€conflicted€as€to€how€this€transpired,Ïthe€post„conviction€judge€found€that€defense€counsel€and€petitioner€hadÏsuggested€the€reckless€driving€alternative.€€He€also€found€that€based€upon€theÏpetitioner's€suggestion,€the€general€sessions€judge€had€agreed€to€find€theÏpetitioner€guilty€of€reckless€driving.× ƒ. ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€trial€judge's€findings€of€fact€on€post„conviction€hearings€areÏconclusive€on€appeal€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€òòButler€v.ÍStateóó,€789€S.W.2d€898,€899„900€(Tenn.€1990).€€This€Court€may€not€reweigh€orÏreevaluate€the€evidence,€nor€substitute€its€inferences€for€those€drawn€by€the€trialÏjudge.€€òòBlack€v.€Stateóó,€794€S.W.2d€752,€755€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990).€€QuestionsÏconcerning€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and€the€weight€and€value€to€be€given€toÏtheir€testimony€are€resolved€by€the€trial€court,€not€this€Court.€€òòIdóó.€€The€petitionerÏcarries€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€ÏòòIdóó.€€Ìà àWe€note€the€highly€irregular€circumstances€surrounding€this€case€and€theÏimpropriety€of€òòexóó€òòparteóó€communications€between€a€judge€and€counsel.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€ÏAlthough€no€rule€of€law€is€designed€to€apply€precisely€to€the€facts€of€this€case,Ïour€goal€is€to€provide€equitable€relief€to€all€parties.€€We€also€acknowledge€theÏvarious€constitutional€rights€of€the€petitioner€as€well€as€the€interest€of€the€state€inÏexercising€its€duty€to€represent€its€citizens.€€With€these€underlying€concerns€inÏmind,€we€address€the€merits€of€petitioner's€claim.€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€he€never€consented€to€nor€was€he€aware€of€anÏamendment€to€the€DUI€charge€to€reckless€driving.€€Thus,€he€seeks€to€have€theÏreckless€driving€conviction€rendered€void€but€wants€to€be€rid€of€the€DUI€chargeÏas€well.€€The€petitioner,€in€effect,€has€gotten€out€of€the€trap€but€now€wants€toÏreturn€for€the€cheese.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€correctly€cites€òòMurff€v.€Stateóó,€425€S.W.2d€286,€288€(Tenn.Ï1967)€for€the€proposition€that€a€warrant€cannot€be€amended€if€the€nature€of€theÏoffense€is€changed€or€a€new€offense€added.€€Further,€we€recognize€that€recklessÏdriving€is€not€a€lesser€included€offense€of€DUI.€€òòRay€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€218,Ï219€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1977)€(holding€that€a€warrant€charging€DUI€could€not€beÏamended€to€charge€reckless€driving).€€However,€we€find€neither€holding€usefulÏin€the€present€case.ÌÌà àLooking€specifically€at€the€pertinent€events€surrounding€the€conviction,Ïwe€see€that€the€general€sessions€judge,€having€had€the€case€under€advisement,Ïannounced€in€open€court€that€he€had€found€the€petitioner€guilty€of€DUI.€€ThisÏdecision€followed€a€full€hearing€on€the€merits.€€Only€when€counsel€reminded€theÏcourt€of€the€òòexóó€òòparteóó€communication,€did€the€trial€judge€charitably€decide€toÏrescue€him.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general€was€not€present€when€theÏannouncement€was€made.€€We€agree€with€the€petitioner€that€the€DUI€convictionÏshould€not€have€been€changed€to€reckless€driving.€€Accordingly,€the€judgmentÏof€conviction€for€reckless€driving€is€rendered€void€and€is€vacated.ÌÌà àHowever,€the€state€should€not€be€penalized€nor€should€the€petitionerÏbenefit€from€the€unusual€turn€of€events.€€As€noted€above,€the€petitioner€is€noÏnovice€to€the€legal€system.€€Our€aim€is€to€put€the€parties€in€the€position€theyÏoccupied€at€the€time€of€the€proper€announcement€of€the€verdict.€€In€the€interestÍof€justice€and€equity€to€all€parties,€we,€therefore,€remand€to€the€Circuit€Court€forÏMarshall€County€with€instruction€to€further€remand€to€the€general€sessions€courtÏfor€the€entry€of€judgment€of€the€appropriate€disposition€as€to€the€original€DUIÏcharge.€€More€specifically,€we€return€the€status€of€this€case€to€the€point€whereÏthe€general€sessions€judge€was€prepared€to€announce€his€decision€after€havingÏhad€the€case€under€advisement.€€The€general€sessions€judge€shall€then€renderÏa€verdict.€€Let€the€chips€fall€as€they€may.ÌÌà àThe€petitioner€has€partially€met€his€burden€in€that€the€reckless€drivingÏconviction€is€void.€€However,€the€remaining€matter€is€remanded€to€the€CircuitÏCourt€for€Marshall€County€with€instructions€as€set€forth€in€this€opinion.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌà àà àà àà àà àà àPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€JudgeÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JudgeÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌDAVID€H.€WELLES,€Judge