WPCa # VUNa % 0(bw@4- A 0lP 0D 0J 0TJ 0^ 0h 0rd 0| 0R 0 1uh U, 0d U,mU>U*B) B*DCG AM D3' 1 0@+v~kv AO  0D D/ BDHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($- - PDVUDӀԡ tdDdpX"|x ((3$ !      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<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d&&&&7Border 1dd-(C << G'''''dxd  !  #d#$  %%   YYY FILED%XSeptember13,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   !#d#$   $       %%Tenn.CodeAnn.5510603.("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &##Xd&###Xd#$  `       \RA'\$%\RA'\7uXXdd7      L)+(;+'h|`  `LINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLEJULYSESSION,1996  STATEOFTENNESSEE, ) C.C.A.NO.01C019511PB00375     )  Appellee,   )     )     ) DAVIDSONCOUNTYVS.     )      ) HON.JAMESR.EVERETT,JR. PATRICKO.GIPSON,   ) JUDGE (Deceased)      )  Appellant.   ) (MotorVehicleHabitualOffender) STATEOFTENNESSEE, ) CCANO.01C019511PB00380     ) Appellee,   ) DAVIDSONCOUNTY     ) VS     ) HON.JAMESR.EVERETT,JR.     ) JUDGE(Deceased)JIMMYG.HARMON  )     ) Appellant.   ) (MotorVehicleHabitualOffender)   ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTSOFTHEPROBATECOURTOFDAVIDSONCOUNTY   FORTHEAPPELLANTS:   FORTHEAPPELLEE:LIONELR.BARRETT,JR.  CHARLESW.BURSONWashingtonSquareTwoSuite417 AttorneyGeneralandReporter222SecondAvenue,NorthNashville,TN37201   KARENM.YACUZZO      AssistantAttorneyGeneral      450JamesRobertsonParkway      Nashville,TN372430493      VICTORS.JOHNSON      DistrictAttorneyGeneral      BERNARDF.MCEVOY      AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral      WashingtonSquareSuite500      222SecondAvenue,North      Nashville,TN372011649OPINIONFILED________________________AFFIRMEDDAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE   %OPINION %  ӛ TheseareappealspursuanttoRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.EachDefendantappealsfromseparateordersofthetrialcourtfindinghimtobeanhabitualtrafficoffender. ,   כOnappeal,eachDefendantarguesthatthetrialcourterredbynotdismissingtheStatespetitiontohavehimdeclaredanhabitualoffenderonthegroundsthatthepetitionwasbarredbytheDistrictAttorneyGeneralsdelayinbringingthepetitionorbytheequitabledoctrineoflaches.Wedisagreeandaffirmthejudgmentsofthetrialcourt. Theunderlyingfactsarenotindispute.EachDefendanthasatleastthreeconvictionsfortheoffenseofdrivingwhileundertheinfluenceofanintoxicant.TheconvictionwhichgaverisetothefilingofthehabitualoffenderϜpetitionagainstDefendantGipsonoccurredonSeptember1,1993inDavidsonCounty,Tennessee.TheconvictionwhichgaverisetothefilingofthehabitualoffenderpetitionagainstDefendantHarmonoccurredonJuly1,1993inDavidsonCounty,Tennessee.ThepetitionstohaveeachDefendantdeclaredanhabitualoffenderwerenotfileduntilFebruaryof1995,someseventeenmonthsandnineteenmonthsaftertherespectivetriggeringconvictions.EachDefendantfiledananswerpleadingthedoctrineoflachesasadefenseandarguingthattheStateviolatedhisdueprocessbywaitingsolongtofilethepetition.ThetrialcourtoverruledeachDefendantsmotionandfoundeachDefendanttobeanhabitualoffender.ItisfromtheseordersofthetrialcourtthattheDefendantsappeal. TheMotorVehicleHabitualOffendersActdeclaresittobethepolicyoftheStateofTennesseeto:8  (1)Providemaximumsafetyforallpersonswhotravelorotherwiseusethepublichighwaysofthestate;8  (2)Denytheprivilegeofoperatingmotorvehiclesonsuchhighwaystopersonswhobytheirconductandrecordhavedemonstratedtheirindifferencetothesafetyandwelfareofothersandtheirdisrespectforthelawsofthestate;and8  (3)Discouragerepetitionofunlawfulactsbyindividualsagainstthepeaceanddignityofthisstateanditspoliticalsubdivisions,andtoimposetheaddeddeprivationoftheprivilegeofoperatingmotorvehiclesuponhabitualoffenderswhohavebeenconvictedrepeatedlyofviolationsoflawsinvolvingtheoperationofmotorvehicles.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510602.      Toaccomplishthispurpose,theActsetsforththatapersonwhoisconvictedofthreeormoreofcertainenumeratedoffensesisanhabitualoffender.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510603(2).WhentherecordsoftheDepartmentofSafetyshowthatanindividualhasaccumulatedtherequisiteconvictionstobeanhabitualoffender,theCommissionerofSafetyisdirectedtofurnishthatrecordtotheDistrictAttorneyGeneralforthejudicialdistrictwhereintheindividualresidesormaybefound.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510605(b). UponreceiptoftherecordofsuchanindividualfromtheCommissionerofSafety,itisthedutyoftheDistrictAttorneyGeneralto forthwithfileapetitionagainsttheindividualtohavetheindividualdeclaredanhabitualoffender.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510606(a).ThelawalsoauthorizestheDistrictAttorneyGeneraltofilesuchapetitioniftheDistrictAttorneyreceives appropriateinformationfromanysourceotherthantheCommissionerofSafety.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510606(b).WecannotdeterminefromtherecordsinthecasessubjudicewhenoreveniftheDistrictAttorneyGeneralforDavidsonCountyreceivedtheDefendantsdrivingrecordsfromtheDepartmentofSafety. EachDefendantarguesthatbecausethetriggeringconvictionofDUIoccurredinDavidsonCounty,theDavidsonCountyDistrictAttorneyGeneralhadimmediateknowledgeoftheconvictionandshouldhaveproceeded forthwithwiththefilingofthepetition.Thus,eacharguesthatbecausetheDistrictAttorneydidnotcomplywiththerequirementsofthestatute,thepetitionshouldbebarred.EachDefendantalsoarguesthateveniftheStateisnotbarredduetotheDistrictAttorneysfailuretocomplywiththestatute,thedoctrineoflachesshouldapplytobartheenforcementoftheAct. ThiscourthaspreviouslyaddressedtheissueraisedhereininStatev.RogerW.Freeman,No.03C019208CR00268,SullivanCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,filedJune1,1993).InFreeman,thiscourtheldthattheterm forthwithasfoundintheActshouldapplyequallytotheprosecutorsdutytoactwhetheruponreceiptoftheinformationfromtheDepartmentofSafetyorfromanyothersource.Id.At3.TheFreemancourtalsonotedthatfromtherecordthecourtwasunabletodeterminewhentheDistrictAttorneybecameawarethattheDefendantcouldbeprosecutedasanhabitualtrafficoffenderand,therefore,couldnotdeterminewhethertheDistrictAttorneyhadacted forthwith.Id.At34.TheFreemancourtfurtherconcludedthatthedoctrineoflacheswasinapplicablebecausetheDefendanthadfailedtoestablishthatthedelaywasinexcusable.Id.at4.WebelievethereasoningofFreemanissound. AsinFreeeman,fromtherecordsinthecasessubjudice,weareunabletodeterminewhentheDistrictAttorneyGeneraldeterminedthateachDefendantsrecordqualifiedhimasanhabitualtrafficoffender. Toestablishtheequitabledefenseoflaches,itmustfirstbeestablishedthattherewasinexcusabledelayinbringingtheaction.Jansenv.Clayton,816S.W.2d49,51,52(Tenn.App.),perm.toappealdenied,id.(Tenn.1991).Inthecasessubjudice,asinFreeman,thereisnoproofintherecordinregardtowhentheDistrictAttorneyGeneralbecameawareofeachDefendantseligibilityfortheprosecutionundertheHabitualMotorVehicleOffenderActorforwhatϜreasonhedelayed,ifindeedheinexcusablydelayedatall. InviewofthepublicpolicydeclaredbythelegislatureinenactingtheϜHabitualOffenderAct,wealsopointoutthatitisdoubtfulthatthelegislaturedirectedtheDistrictAttorneyGeneraltoproceed forthwithsothathabitualmotoroffenderswouldbeprotectedfromdelay.ItisquiteobviousthattheDistrictAttorneyGeneralwasdirectedtoproceed forthwithsothatthepublicwouldbeprotectedfromthehabitualoffenders. Wealsonotethatthedoctrineoflachesisnotgenerallyimputedtoagovernmentalagencybytheactionofanofficeholder.Stateexrel.Cristv.Bomar,211Tenn.420,426,365S.W.2d295,297(1963). InJohnP.Saad&Sonsv.NashvilleThermalTransferCorporation,715S.W.2d41,46(Tenn.1986),ourSupremeCourtobservedasfollows:8  TheTennesseeCourtofAppealsnotedinAmericanNationalInsuranceCo.vMcPhetridge,28Tenn.App.145,187S.W.2d640,cert.denied(Tenn.1945), [t]hedoctrineoflacheswasveryaptlystated...inEvansv.Steele,125Tenn.483,494,495,145S.W.162,165,asfollows:8  Reliefisgenerallyrefusedbycourtsofequity,becauseof8 lapseoftime,onlyinsuchcaseswherethelossofevidence,deathofwitnessesorparties,andfailureofmemoryresultingintheobscurationoffactstotheprejudiceofthedefendant,renderuncertaintheascertainmentoftruth,andmakeitimpossibleforthecourttopronounceadecreewithconfidence...Thedoctrineoflaches...isnotanarbitraryortechnicaldoctrine.Nohardandfastruleforitsapplicationcanbeformulated.Ӝ  Wealsonotethattheapplicationofthedoctrineoflacheslieswithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt,anditwillnotbereversedexceptonashowingofanabuseofdiscretion.Id. WeconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterrbyrefusingtodismisstheStatespetitionsonthegroundsthattheDistrictAttorneyGeneraldidnotproceed forthwithinbringingthepetitionsoronthebasisoflaches.TheϜjudgmentsofthetrialcourtareaffirmed.̜     ____________________________________     DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUDGE___________________________________JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE