WPC* #c9f&{ * |F<{zpGӶqոޑ6 x6o,c2ٲ|xzּ+7.%uJaP}sŖKl^W L*e֪{nIUeu*<}sf;!W W?yt¨}h#߅v6w(bc,;1 R% U%g+nW-yrEp.B'vn.= 7Fkc wYR+Y8w>,,\O!+lb3< 4Z n N}  m #! U:  0! 0D sfciU:#$U:%O%O%O%O%O%O%O%O%O%O%O%O%O%O% AO&d&d& 0D*' D/n' B'''' 0'' D3)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) B)X,vj'L (`$TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7GXXdXXd7  ,  AZ"Arial RegularӀ@q'1'3|xUHP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0,  AZ"Arial Regular _ *@T@R[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T8JXXdd8 @  `   2    KyXXTherecordreflectsthat,atthehearingbeforetheCircuitCourt,theState,representedby  theDistrictAttorneyGeneralfortheFourthJudicialDistrictagreedwiththeGeneralSessions  Courtthat, thestatuteisinfactunconstitutional;thatthereisnorationalbasisforit. | Notwithstanding,theDistrictAttorneyGeneralarguedthattheGeneralSessionsCourterredby B : applyingthedoctrineofelisionandthattheentireprovisionneededtobestruckasbeing   unconstitutional.    ` ((3$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T8XXdd8    `   0  (#$  0   _KyXX *@T@R[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T8JXXdd8 @  `   4    Theappelleedoesnotassertthatthegeneralsessionscourtsrelianceuponthedoctrine  ofelisioniscorrecttherebyentitlinghertoasentenceofcommunityservice.Rather,sherelies  uponthefindingsofthecircuitcourtregardingtheunconstitutionalityofthestatutoryprovision.  i_KyXX *@T@R[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T8JXXdd8 @  `   5    WenotethathadthetrialcourtupheldtheGeneralSessionsCourtsimpositionoftwo  hundredhourscommunityservice,theissuewouldhavebeenjusticiable.Similarly,hadthis  actionaroseinthecourtsofDavidsonCounty,theissuewouldhavebeenjusticiable. XXXXXX Ad   FILEDXX   November18,1999  CecilCROWSON,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk  \_VXX G@T@R[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7 @  `   1    Thedoctrineofelisionprovides:  ifitismadetoappearfromthefaceofthestatutethatthelegislaturewouldhaveenacted[theprovision]withtheobjectionablefeaturesomitted,andthoseportionsofthestatutewhicharenotobjectionablewillbeheldvalidandenforceable,...provided,ofcourse,thereisleftenoughoftheactforacompletelawcapableofenforcementandfairlyansweringtheobjectofitspassage.̀Franksv.State,772S.W.2d428,430(Tenn.1989)(citationsomitted). : 2  Y_ *@T@R[A' LegalX3' Letter A' Legal3'T8JXXdd8 @  `   3    KyXX [_T]he_ԀTennesseeattorneygeneral...hasthestatutoryduty:  8 ` [_t]o_Ԁdefendtheconstitutionalityandvalidityofalllegislationofstatewide  applicability...enactedbythegeneralassembly,exceptinthoseinstances ~ whereheisoftheopinionthatsuchlegislationisnotconstitutional,inwhichevent F > theattorneygeneralandreportershallsocertifytothespeakerofeachhouseof   thegeneralassembly. ` `  Statev.Chastain,871S.W.2d661,664(Tenn.1994)(quotingTenn.CodeAnn.86109(b)(9) F > (1993)(emphasisadded)).#XXKy#,cAZ"Arial Regular XXXX Ad   6XXFILEDXX6   XXNovember18,1999 ff CecilCROWSON,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(0*+C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ,,' dxdP Pd(3a7$ `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T8XXdd8   \\\\'dxd d `!TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T8XXdd8   _  _@. . INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE   l'26&"h 8` `E` 2ttxJ ll'26&"h 8` `E` ttx lq'2;+'h|_H `E/? Ht goqq'2;+'h|H `E Ht  q   T$T$@#ATKNOXVILLE   @OCTOBERSESSION,1999STATEOFTENNESSEE, h   * (L   T$T$   `     h   *  No.03C019904CC00146 8   ` Appellant,   h   * $   `     h   *  COCKECOUNTY   vs. `     h   *    `     h   *  Hon.RexHenryOgle,Judge   CANDRAANNFRAZIER, h 0  * T$T$  `     h   *  (StateAppeal)   ` Appellee.   h   *   FortheAppellee:   h     FortheAppellant: &J  ThomasV.Testerman  h   0  PaulG.Summers T$T$ 301EastBroadway  0 h 0hT$hT$0T$T$AttorneyGeneralandReporter T$T$ Newport,TN37821 h  !  `     h     R.StephenJobe  " and `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral  (#  #  `     h     CriminalJusticeDivision AmberHaas    h     425FifthAvenueNorth b% Asst.PublicDefender h     2dFloor,CordellHullBuilding N&r 102MimsAvenue   h     Nashville,TN372430493 x   (#  4'X Newport,TN37821 h  (>   `     h      `     h     AlSchmutzer,Jr.  ) "  `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     SevierCountyCourthouse `     h     125CourtAvenue,Suite301E `     h     Sevierville,TN37862OPINIONFILED:򀀀 2&'+ APPEALDISMISSED DavidG.Hayes, Judge f7,1   R8v-2  XLXXX@+ OPINION    ` TheStateappealstherulingofthe_Cocke_ԀCountyCircuitCourtfindingsubsection(n)ofthe_DUI_Ԁstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.5510403(n)(1998),unconstitutional.Afterreview,weconcludethatnocaseorcontroversyexistsempoweringthiscourttorenderadecisiononthemerits.Accordingly,theappealisdismissed. ` Theappellee,_Candra_ԀAnnFrazier,enteredaguiltypleainthe_Cocke_ԀCountyGeneralSessionsCourttotheoffenseofdrivingundertheinfluence.Beforeimposingsentence,thegeneralsessionscourtfoundthatTenn.CodeAnn.5510403(n)wasunconstitutionalasviolatingtheequalprotectionclause.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510403(n)provides:8 ` Notwithstandingtheprovisionsofthissectiontothecontrary,incountieswithmetropolitanformofgovernmentandpopulationinexcessof100,000...thejudgeexercisingcriminaljurisdictionmaysentenceapersonconvictedofviolatingtheprovisionsof5510501,forthefirsttimetoperformtwohundredhoursofpublicserviceworkinasupervisedpublicserviceprograminlieuoftheminimumperiodofconfinementrequiredbytheprovisionsofsubsection(a). ` !` ! Itisconcededthatthelimitinglanguageofsubsection(n)appliesonlytoDavidsonCounty.Theeffect,therefore,permitsthoseconvictedinDavidsonCountytoperformpublicserviceinlieuofthemandatoryfortyeighthoursconfinementinjail.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.5510401(a).Thegeneralsessionscourt,invokingthe x-p&) doctrineofelision, #  1      ׀struckonlythelanguageofsection5510403(n)thatlimitedthe X/P(+ provisionsapplicationtoDavidsonCounty.Theappelleewassentencedtoperform 810*- Ї_twohundredhoursofcommunityserviceworkin_Cocke_ԀCounty.TheState  appealedthisdecisiontotheCircuitCourtof_Cocke_ԀCounty.   ` OnMarch1,1999,the_Cocke_ԀCountyCircuitCourt,afterhearingthe   argumentofcounsel,thetestimonyofwitnesses,andconsideringtheevidencein  therecord,concludedthat h`  8 ` thereisnorationalbasisforthespecialexceptionforDavidsonCounty H@  tothegeneral_DUI_ԀstatuteandthatSubSection(n)ofTenn.Code 80  Ann.Section5510403violatesequalprotectioninlightofStatev. (  Tester,879S.W.2d823(Tenn.1994),anditfurtherappearingtothe  Courtthatelisionisnotpossiblenorpermissible...andthereforethis  CourtdeclaressubsectionnofTenn.CodeAnn.5510403tobe  unconstitutional....[  #  2      ]` !` ! WAfterstrikingsubsection(n)fromthestatute,thetrialcourtvacatedtheappellee  Frazierssentencetopublicserviceworkandimposedasentenceoffortyeight  hoursjailconfinement.TheAttorneyGeneraloftheStateofTennesseenow xp appealsthisdecision._ #  3      _ X P  ` Inordertolitigateaconstitutionalissue,theremustfirstbeagenuine case $ or controversypresent.Oursupremecourthasstatedthatacourtshouldnot %!  passontheconstitutionalityofastatute,oranypartofone,unlessabsolutely ' # necessaryforthedeterminationofthecaseandofthepresentrightsoftheparties )"% _tothelitigation.CountyofShelbyv.McWherter,936S.W.2d923,931(Tenn.App.  1996)(citingEstrinv.Moss,430S.W.2d345,352(Tenn.1968)).Therightofthe  courttodeclarealegislativeactionunconstitutionalcanonlybeexercisedwhen   thereisapropercasebetweenopposingparties.Thedecisionthatacaseisnon   justiciablebarsconsiderationofthemerits,regardlessofotherequitieswhichmay  beatissue.Therewillbeno caseorcontroversyor justiciablecontroversy h`  sufficienttoallowthecourttoadjudicateconstitutionalissueswhere:thepartiesare H@  seekingonlyanadvisoryorabstracthypotheticalopinion;thelitigationispremature (  orthecontroversyunripe;thelitigationhasbecomemoot;thereisanabsenceof  adverseparties;orthejudicialactcouldnotgivefinalitytothecontroversy.See3  ChesterJamesAntieau&WilliamJ.Rich,ModernConstitutionalLaw48.27(2d  ed.1997).Inthiscase,weareprecludedfromrulingonthequestionpresentedon  appealbecause(1)theissueraisedbytheStateismootand(2)thecaseisabsent   adverseparties. h`  ` Acasebecomesmootwhentheissuesinitiallypresentedinlitigationceases (#  toexistorwhenthecourtsrulingwouldhavenopracticaleffectontheparties.See %  CountyofShelbyv.McWherter,936S.W.2dat931;McIntyrev.Traughber,884 &" S.W.2d134,147(Tenn.App.1994).Acourtisnotempowered todeclare,forthe (!$ governmentoffuturecases,principlesorrulesoflawwhichcannotaffecttheresult *#& astothethinginissueinthecasebeforeit.SeeUnitedStatesv.Alaska ,%( SteamshipCompany,253U.S.113,116,40S.Ct.448,449(1920).Indeed, the h.`'* powerofthecourts...topassupontheconstitutionalityof[legislation]arisesonly H0@), whentheinterestsoflitigantsrequiretheuseofthisjudicialauthorityfortheir (2 +. protectionagainstactualinterference.SeeUnitedPublicWorkersofAmerica 4-0 (C.I.O.)v.Mitchell,330U.S.75,89,67S.Ct.556,564(1947)(emphasisadded). 5.2  926  ` Inthecasebeforethiscourt,thetrialcourtspronouncementfinding  subsection(n)unconstitutionalhadnoeffectontheStateortheappellee.  Accordingly,thecourtsrulingwasadversetoneither.Theappelleewassentenced   underthesameDUIsentencingprovisionsaswouldhaveappliedtoanyfirsttime   offenderinacountyotherthanDavidson. #  4      ׀TheStatecannotcomplainbecausethe  appelleewassentencedasprovidedbylaw.Whileadecisionregardingthe h`  statutesconstitutionalitycouldbegiven,thiswouldmerelybeahypotheticalruling H@  asbetweentheseparties.Theonlyeffectofthetrialcourtsfindingthatsubsection (  (n)isunconstitutionalistodenyfirsttimeDUIoffendersinDavidsonCountythe  benefitofthepublicserviceexception.However,theimpactofthisdecisionisofno  legalconsequenceasthecircuitcourtsopinionmerelyconstitutespersuasive  authorityandisnotbinding,underthetheoryofstaredecisis,uponotherjudicial  circuits,includingtheTwentiethJudicialDistrict(DavidsonCounty). #  5      ׀   ` Anappellatecourtwillnotpassonlawsuitswhenthereisnojusticiable H!@ controversypresented,orrenderadvisoryopinionsonquestionswhichare (#  premature.SeeStatev.Rogers,703S.W.2d166,169(Tenn.Crim.App.1985) %  (citationsomitted).Thedoctrineofjusticiabilitypromptscourtstostaytheirhandin &" casesthatdonotinvolveagenuineandexistingcontroversyrequiringthepresent (!$ adjudicationofpresentrights.SeeMcIntyrev.Traughber,884S.W.2dat137 *#& (citingStateex.relLewisv.State,208Tenn.534,537,347S.W.2d47,48(1961); ,%( Dockeryv.Dockery,559S.W.2d952,954(Tenn.App.1977)).Thus,thiscourt h.`'* declinestheopportunitytorenderamereadvisoryopinioninthismatter,SuperFlea H0@), Mkt.v.Olsen,677S.W.2d449,451(Tenn.1984);Parksv.Alexander,608S.W.2d (2 +. 881,892(Tenn.App.1980),ordecideanabstractlegalquestion.Stateex.rel  Lewisv.State,208Tenn.at538,347S.W.2dat49.   ` Forthereasonsaforementioned,theappealisdismissed.#XXX Xud#Thecostsofthis   appealwillbepaidbytheStateofTennessee.   `     h   ____________________________________ (#      `     h   DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge   CONCUR:  _________________________________________  GARYR.WADE,PresidingJudge  _________________________________________  DAVIDH.WELLES,Judge  |