ÿWPCí  Ó×êéºeª¯ËÝâ˜h*\Äý®c_mš¤™¯µ¡› DdË”Ø8È:ý¡Ú¸à+ö¾Ëƒ¡ÒKC®¥P¬ù‘7@ZèôÀU+ª`òÝ’wÐÈÊ#U‡O‘ÕZ8j¾ÿ–í;2"¼Ås´uÇ©—щйOJ’̸7.Z$%P)C5[ö÷-¤1€ïy܉ .Ä Ü¯Œ9t¾u³øþ¸+ <³µóŸamryxJ¶Ÿóìóýetï+r ^žY{@¥ÞwÊœ0mÂ* ça¾ÑŒÛ„êx)$eôFþ¢&?^õç¿Š± Y‡‹²º–jÊmH\®Ütƒ‘cI ‘¿@äx×G™iS´Ý¤¸±×©+:7`ÓÍÇpÈ®¶ f‚¬ë ;g¶«J˜¼¨YÙسz±;ZO[·«þ7=2OžŠsŠ®sõ‹<Åâ!ùžÕ½³rQÜs’)¹—ðF¸|¨ÓQ‚Lsïø]Öw·1*sã¶gÓ$3Pñ<ÉÚ«‡ ß²Æø‹1½,à–Ä&¼ŠãvíÉ,NjxY‘œ§ºà®ìd.ò¹ecw‹Ñ »æ(MôovA‹VcåDñ™œø7 LÏ;¬/-q‘rÙ¨êÇyxú”Þæ¶b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U,‘ ƽ ƃ ÆI ÆU!@ÕN 1‡ 72žEÐ 1uÒ 72G 0+cy 1‡Ü 72c• 1‡ 0D$ 72h 0¤š 1> 1‡Ë 72R 1‡„ 72  0w= 1´ 72A 1‡s 72ú 1, 72¹ 72ëb%%­;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 0ëèèèè BÓÓ 0¤ð D5” D-É 0Köö ASAÆ” 0¤Z 0Dþ A«B »Q–)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularq\;'ogram Files3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0,†r‰AZ‹Arial Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹(Times New Roman (Š½CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(š½CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. (ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóA.(|3y+$§§Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ë´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý(&ÚCEMU]emu}AutoList9(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(º½CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A."A.0³CEKSY_ekqAutoList5A.(1)A.A.A.A.A.A.$A.(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à(öÙCEMU]emu}AutoList6(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)'(1)(ê½CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.)A.(ÚCEMU]emu}AutoList8(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)+(1)!(1)- ù- Ñ 8 Ñ £Ý ƒR5¼$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòX»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ôÄòXXòÔThe€trial€courtððs€remarks€indicate€the€difficulty€which€often€arises€in€determining€the€impact€of€running€a€stateÐ ° Ðsentence€concurrently€with€a€federal€sentence.€€The€problem€of€concurrent/consecutive€sentencing€with€federal€chargesÐ xÈ Ðis€a€recurring€one€in€this€court,€primarily€because€this€state€and€the€United€States€are€separate€sovereigns.€€òòSeeóó€òòDerrickÐ @ ÐE.€Means€v.€Stateóó,€C.C.A.€No.€02C01„9707„CR„00248,€Shelby€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€August€13,€1998,€atÐ X ÐJackson)€(counsel€was€ineffective€in€failing€to€confirm€that€federal€authorities€would€take€immediate€custody€of€inmateÐ Ð  Ðto€serve€sentence€ordered€to€run€concurrently€with€the€federal€sentence).€€(|G25¼$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ë´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€XòX»»Ô d(|3y+$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ë´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3y+$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ë´»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€ë´»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼ë´»»»ÔÑ8€òXXdð»»d8ÑÑ€1ORÑà@HHìàÔ‡¼½»»¼ë´ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ  ÐÓ  ÓJuly€2000€SessionÐ Ô$ ÐÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔÌò òÔ#†¼½»XXõ¼Í#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€MARK€ANTHONY€GRIFFINòòóóÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½Ôó óÐ Ò" ÐÌà@@â â ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ Ò " Ðà@@@ @ ìàNo.€58944€€€Richard€Ô_ÔBaumgartnerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ ¾  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<` AßÐ ‚Ò  ÐÌà@@æ æ ìàNo.€E1999„00122„CCA„R3„CD€Ð }Í  ÐAugust€29,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ i¹  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<T` AßÐ U¥  ÐÔ#†XòXXXõ¼#Ôó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡Xõ¼XXXòÔThe€defendant€appeals€his€convictions€for€aggravated€robbery€and€attempted€robbery,€for€which€heÐ T¤  Ðreceived€an€effective€nine„year€sentence.€€Ô#†¼½»XXõ¼I#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔThe€defendant€raises€the€following€issues€in€this€appeal:Ð @ Ð1)€whether€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€guilty€verdicts;€2)€whether€the€trialÐ ,| Ðcourt€erred€by€not€suppressing€his€confession;€and€3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€theÐ h Ðdefendantððs€motion€for€dismissal€based€upon€a€violation€of€due€process€and€denial€of€a€speedy€trial.€Ð T ÐÔ#†¼½»XXõ¼¡#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔWe€conclude€the€first€two€issues€are€without€merit,€but€remand€for€another€hearing€on€the€dueÐ ð@ Ðprocess/speedy€trial€issue.€Ô#†XòXXXõ¼¿#ÔÔ‡ XJª XXXòÔ€Ô#†XòX X XJªt#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼XXXòÔÐ Ü, ÐÌò òÓ  ÓÔ#†XòXXXõ¼·#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼XXXòÔTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmed€in€Part;Ð ´ ÐJudgments€Vacated;€and€Remandedó óÐ  ð ÐÌòòÓ  ÓJoe€G.€RileyÔ#†¼½»àXõ¼¤#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X.¼½Ôóó,€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJohn€Everett€Williams€and€RobertÐ xÈ ÐW.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ôóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð d´ ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender;€John€R.€Halstead€(at€trial)€and€Paula€R.€Voss€(onÐ <Œ Ðappeal),€Assistant€District€Public€Defenders,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Mark€AnthonyÐ ( x ÐGriffin.Ð !d  ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Clinton€J.€Morgan,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ì"<" ÐRandall€Eugene€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Scott€Green,€€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ Ø#(# ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð Ä$ $ Ðò òÓÓÓÓÓ  ÓÌÌÓg ÓÓÓOPINIONó óÔ#†¼½»XXõ¼ #ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔÐ ˆ'Ø"' ÐÔ#†XòXXXõ¼ #ÔÔ‡Xõ¼XXXòÔÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€appeals€his€convictions€for€aggravated€robbery€and€attempted€robbery,€forÐ `)°$) Ðwhich€he€received€concurrent€sentences€of€nine€years€and€three€years,€respectively.€€Ô#†¼½»XXõ¼Ü #ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔThe€defendantÐ L*œ%* Ðcontends€in€this€appeal:€1)€the€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€sustain€the€guiltyÐ 8+ˆ&+ Ðverdicts;€2)€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€suppressing€his€confession;€and€3)€the€trial€court€erred€byÐ $,t', Ðdenying€the€defendantððs€motion€for€dismissal€based€upon€a€violation€of€due€process€and€denial€ofÐ -`(-ý÷ ÐÔ_Ôa€speedy€trial.€€After€a€thorough€examination€of€the€record,€we€conclude€that€the€evidence€isÐ ° Ðsufficient€to€support€the€convictions€and€that€the€trial€court€properly€overruled€the€motion€to€suppressÐ œì Ðthe€confession.€€However,€we€remand€for€another€hearing€on€the€due€process/speedy€trial€issue.€€Ô#†¼½»XXõ¼O#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½Ô€Ô#†¼½»XXõ¼#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔÐ ˆØ Ðà  àÔ#†¼½»XXõ¼Â#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔÌÌòòòòò òÓ  ÓFACTSÐ L œ ÐÌó óóóóóÔ#†¼½»XXõ¼%#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔÓ  Óà  àOn€February€16,€1993,€there€was€a€robbery€at€a€video€store€in€Knoxville.€€When€the€maskedÐ $ t Ðperpetrator€entered€the€store,€he€was€carrying€a€gun.€€After€entering€the€video€store,€the€perpetratorÐ  ` Ðdemanded€that€the€clerk€give€him€the€money€in€the€cash€drawer.€€While€waiting€for€the€clerk€to€openÐ ü L  Ðthe€cash€drawer,€the€perpetrator€put€his€gun€in€the€face€of€a€customer€who€was€checking€out€at€theÐ è 8  Ðregister.€€€Already€nervous,€the€perpetrator€began€to€panic€when€the€clerk€started€to€fumble€with€theÐ Ô$  Ðcash€drawer€and€could€not€get€it€open.€€In€a€state€of€panic,€the€perpetrator€grabbed€the€customerððsÐ À  Ðwallet€and€fled.€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àOn€July€1,€1993,€a€Knox€County€detective€interviewed€the€defendant.€€The€defendantÐ „Ô  Ðadmitted€his€participation€in€the€robberies€at€the€video€store.€€He€stated€that€he€told€the€store€clerkÐ pÀ Ðto€give€him€the€money.€€When€the€clerk€hit€the€cash€drawer,€the€defendant€stated€that€he€got€scaredÐ \¬ Ðand€snatched€the€customerððs€wallet€from€him.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€defense€offered€no€proof€at€trial.Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€aggravated€robbery€of€the€customer€and€the€attemptedÐ øH Ðrobbery€of€the€store€clerk.Ð ä4 Ðà  àÌÔ#†¼½»XXõ¼¢#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼X»¼½ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼½»XXõ¼ #ÔòòóóÔ€Xõ¼X»¼½Ôò òòòSUFFICIENCY€OF€EVIDENCEó óóóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÓ€ (š½83ÓÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€evidence€presented€at€trial€was€insufficient€to€support€hisÐ €Ð Ðconvictions€for€aggravated€robbery€and€attempted€robbery.€€We€disagree.Ð l¼ ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£¯ÝÔ2š½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝStandard€of€Review݃3£¯ÜÝŒÐD!”(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àIn€determining€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence,€this€Court€does€not€reweigh€or€reevaluate€theÐ #l! Ðevidence.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832,€835€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€jury€verdict€approved€by€the€trialÐ $X" Ðjudge€accredits€the€state's€witnesses€and€resolves€all€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€state.€€òòState€v.€Bigbeeóó,Ð ô$D # Ð885€S.W.2d€797,€803€(Tenn.€1994).€€On€appeal,€the€state€is€entitled€to€the€strongest€legitimate€viewÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€evidence€and€all€legitimate€or€reasonable€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòId.óó€ThisÐ Ì&"% ÐCourt€will€not€disturb€a€verdict€of€guilt€due€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€unless€the€defendantÐ ¸'#& Ðdemonstrates€that€the€facts€contained€in€the€record€and€the€inferences€which€may€be€drawn€therefromÐ ¤(ô#' Ðare€insufficient,€as€a€matter€of€law,€for€a€rational€trier€of€fact€to€find€the€accused€guilty€beyond€aÐ )à$( Ðreasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Breweróó,€932€S.W.2d€1,€19€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€Accordingly,€it€isÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€appellate€court's€duty€to€affirm€the€conviction€if€the€evidence,€viewed€under€these€standards,€wasÐ h+¸&* Ðsufficient€for€any€rational€trier€of€fact€to€have€found€the€essential€elements€of€the€offense€beyond€aÐ ° Ðreasonable€doubt.€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(e);€€òòJackson€v.€Virginiaóó,€443€U.S.€307,€319,€99€S.€Ct.€2781,Ð œì Ð2789,€61€L.€Ed.2d€560€(1979);€€òòState€v.€Cazesóó,€875€S.W.2d€253,€259€(Tenn.€1994).Ð ˆØ ÐÌB.€à0  àAnalysisÐ`°(#(# Ðà  àÌà  àRobbery€is€the€ð ðintentional€or€knowing€theft€of€property€from€the€person€of€another€byÐ 8 ˆ Ðviolence€or€putting€the€person€in€fear.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401(a).€€Aggravated€robbery€is€aÐ $ t Ðrobbery€ð ð[a]ccomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon€or€by€display€of€any€article€used€or€fashioned€to€leadÐ  ` Ðthe€victim€to€reasonably€believe€it€to€be€a€deadly€weapon.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„402(a)(1).€Ð ü L  ÐOne€commits€an€attempted€robbery€when€he€acts€with€the€intent€to€commit€robbery,€and€his€ð ðconductÐ è 8  Ðconstitutes€a€substantial€step€toward€the€commission€of€the€offense.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„Ð Ô$  Ð101(a)(3).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€testimony,€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€reveals€that€the€perpetrator€took€theÐ ˜è  Ðwallet€from€the€customer,€the€taking€being€accomplished€with€a€deadly€weapon.€€Furthermore,€it€isÐ „Ô  Ðnot€determinative€whether€the€perpetrator€took€the€wallet€out€of€the€customerððs€hand€(as€set€forth€inÐ pÀ Ðthe€defendantððs€confession),€or€from€the€counter€in€front€of€the€customer€(as€set€forth€in€theÐ \¬ Ðcustomerððs€testimony).€€Either€constitutes€a€taking€from€the€person€of€another.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Nixóó,€922Ð H˜ ÐS.W.2d€894,€900€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Howardóó,€693€S.W.2d€365,€368€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€1985).€€Finally,€the€defendant€admitted€he€was€the€perpetrator.€€Thus,€the€evidence€is€sufficientÐ  p Ðto€support€aggravated€robbery.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€testimony,€in€a€light€most€favorable€to€the€state,€further€reveals€that€the€perpetratorÐ ä4 Ðpointed€a€gun€at€the€store€clerk€and€demanded€money.€€This€clearly€reflects€an€intent€to€commitÐ Ð  Ðrobbery€and€a€substantial€step€towards€its€commission.€€Again,€the€defendant€confessed€to€being€theÐ ¼  Ðperpetrator.€€Thus,€the€evidence€is€sufficient€to€support€the€conviction€for€attempted€robbery.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òSUPPRESSION€OF€THE€DEFENDANTððS€CONFESSIONó óóóÐ l¼ ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€suppressing€the€confession€theÐ D!” Ðdefendant€gave€to€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€We€disagree.€Ð 0"€  ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ (ª½88ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£a-ÝÔ2ª½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝStandard€of€Review݃3£a-Ž-ÝŒÐ$X"(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àThe€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court€at€the€hearing€on€a€motion€to€suppress€are€bindingÐ à%0!$ Ðupon€this€Court€unless€the€evidence€contained€in€the€record€preponderates€against€them.€€òòState€v.Ð Ì&"% ÐCarteróó,€988€S.W.2d€145,€149€(Tenn.€1999).€€The€trial€court,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€is€able€to€assess€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcredibility€of€the€witnesses,€determine€the€weight€and€value€to€be€afforded€the€evidence€and€resolvesÐ ¤(ô#' Ðany€conflicts€in€the€evidence.€€òòState€v.€Odomóó,€928€S.W.2d€18,€23€(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€this€CourtÐ )à$( Ðis€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€conclusions€of€law.€€òòState€v.€Simpsonóó,€968€S.W.2d€776,€779€(Tenn.Ð |*Ì%) Ð1998).€€The€defendant€has€the€burden€of€establishing€that€the€evidence€contained€in€the€recordÐ h+¸&* Ðpreponderates€against€the€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court.€€òòBraziel€v.€Stateóó,€529€S.W.2d€501,Ð ° Ð506€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1975).Ð œì Ðà  àÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£`2ÝÔ2ª½ÔÚ  ÚBÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝFactual€Background݃3£`22ÝŒÐtÄ(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àThe€defendant€argues€that€the€confession€he€gave€to€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€DepartmentÐ L œ Ðshould€have€been€suppressed€as€a€result€of€an€alleged€promise€that€was€made€to€him€by€the€detective.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐThe€defendant€alleges€that€he€was€told€that€if€he€cooperated€with€the€Sheriffððs€Department,€theÐ $ t Ðdetective€would€recommend€that€any€sentence€would€run€concurrently€with€federal€charges€he€wasÐ  ` Ðthen€facing.€€€€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€testified€during€the€suppression€hearing€that€he€was€told€on€June€29,€1993,€thatÐ Ô$  Ðð ðif€he€was€willing€to€cooperate€...€and€give€a€statement,€then€possibly€[the€detective€would]€speakÐ À  Ðwith€...€the€D.A.ðð€€The€defendant,€however,€decided€not€to€answer€any€questions€at€that€time.€€TheÐ ¬ü  Ðdefendant€also€testified€that€on€July€1,€1993,€€he€agreed€to€talk€to€the€detective€who€had€approachedÐ ˜è  Ðhim€two€days€earlier.€€The€defendant€testified€that€the€detective€again€told€him€that€ð ðif€[he]€wouldÐ „Ô  Ðsay€anything€[about€the€robberies,€the€detective]€would€speak€to€the€D.A.ððs€office€and€possibly€haveÐ pÀ Ð[the]€sentences€ran€(sic)€concurrently.ðð€€During€the€same€hearing€the€detective€testified€that€he€didÐ \¬ Ðnot€remember€telling€the€defendant€anything€about€concurrent€sentences.€€He€further€stated€that€ifÐ H˜ Ðhe€did€make€a€reference€to€concurrent€sentencing,€he€was€referring€to€other€state€charges€since€ð ð[he]Ð 4„ Ðcanððt€make€any€suggestions€on€federal€issues.ððÐ  p ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€declined€to€make€a€finding€as€to€whether€or€not€the€detective€made€anyÐ øH Ðrepresentations€about€concurrent€sentencing€to€the€defendant;€instead,€the€trial€court€assumed€thatÐ ä4 Ðhe€did€for€purposes€of€the€ruling.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€defendant€had€considerableÐ Ð  Ðexperience€in€the€criminal€justice€system€and€ð ðdecided€he€was€in€a€position€where€he€was€going€toÐ ¼  Ðbe€better€off€if€he€cooperated€with€the€detective€and€gave€a€statement€[to]€see€what€he€could€do.ðð€Ð ¨ø ÐThe€trial€court€concluded€that€the€defendantððs€will€was€not€ð ðoverborneðð€by€the€detectiveððs€conductÐ ”ä Ðand€denied€suppression€of€the€confession.€Ð €Ð ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£û<ÝÔ2ª½ÔÚ  ÚCÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝAnalysis݃3£û<(=ÝŒÐX ¨(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àA€confession€must€be€ð ðfree€and€voluntaryðð€to€be€admissible;€thus,€it€must€not€be€extractedÐ 0"€  Ðby€threats,€violence,€direct€or€indirect€promises,€or€improper€influence.€€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€933€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð450,€455€(Tenn.€1996)€(quoting€òòBram€v.€United€Statesóó,€168€U.S.€532,€542„43,€18€S.€Ct.€183,€187,Ð $X" Ð42€L.€Ed.€568€(1897)).€€However,€promises€of€leniency€do€not€òòper€seóó€render€a€confession€involuntary.€Ð ô$D # ÐòòSmithóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€455.€€Only€those€confessions€ð ðcompelledðð€by€promises€of€leniency€areÐ à%0!$ Ðconsidered€involuntary.€€òòState€v.€Kellyóó,€603€S.W.2d€726,€729€(Tenn.€1980).€€The€crucial€issue€isÐ Ì&"% Ðwhether€the€conduct€of€law€enforcement€officers€was€such€as€to€overbear€the€defendantððs€will€toÐ ¸'#& Ðresist€and€bring€about€confessions€not€freely€self„determined.€€òòSmithóó,€933€S.W.2d€at€455„56;€òòKellyóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð603€S.W.2d€at€728.€Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àClearly,€no€promises€were€made€to€the€defendant€that€any€sentence€would€in€fact€runÐ ° Ðconcurrently€with€any€other€sentence€the€defendant€might€receive€in€the€federal€system.€€At€most,€theÐ œì Ðdefendant€was€told€that€if€he€cooperated€with€the€detective€in€this€case,€the€detective€would€speakÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€prosecutorððs€office€about€the€possibility€of€concurrent€sentences.€€The€trial€courtððs€conclusionÐ tÄ Ðthat€the€defendantððs€will€was€not€overborne€by€the€detectiveððs€conduct€is€amply€supported€by€theÐ `° Ðrecord.€€The€confession€was€not€compelled€by€promises€of€leniency€and€was€properly€admitted€intoÐ L œ Ðevidence.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌò òòòÓ  ÓPROSECUTORIAL€DELAYÐ  ` Ðó óóóÓôDÓÌØ! !ØÓ€ )(ê½88ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£áEÝÔ2ê½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝState€of€the€Record݃3£áEFÝŒÐè 8 (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€the€delay€in€his€prosecution€violated€his€due€process€rights€and/orÐ À  Ðhis€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€Specifically,€he€alleges€that€prosecutorial€delay€has€made€it€impossibleÐ ¬ü  Ðfor€him€to€receive€sentences€that€would€run€concurrently€with€the€federal€sentence€he€received€in€JulyÐ ˜è  Ð1993.€€We€conclude€that€this€case€must€be€remanded€for€another€hearing€on€this€issue.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€material€facts€relating€to€the€alleged€delay€are€difficult€to€determine€from€the€recordÐ \¬ Ðbefore€the€court.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€offenses€were€committed€on€February€16,€1993;€theÐ H˜ Ðdefendant€was€interrogated€on€June€29€and€July€1,€1993;€the€defendant€was€indicted€on€July€24,Ð 4„ Ð1995;€and€the€defendant€was€ultimately€tried€on€August€17,€1999.€€Exactly€what€else€occurredÐ  p Ðbetween€February€1993€and€August€1999€is€less€clear.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àOur€examination€of€the€record€reveals€that€no€testimony€or€documentary€evidence€wasÐ ä4 Ðintroduced€by€either€party€relating€to€prosecutorial€delay.€€The€record€does€contain€transcripts€ofÐ Ð  Ðhearings€on€the€motion€to€dismiss€which€include€arguments€of€counsel,€but€no€evidence.€€TheÐ ¼  Ðtechnical€record€contains€several€defense€motions€relating€to€this€issue€which€contain€an€allegedÐ ¨ø Ðchronology€of€events€and€have€several€uncertified€documents€attached,€none€of€which€is€evidence.Ð ”ä ЀÌà  àUnder€the€circumstances€we€deem€it€appropriate€to€remand€for€a€new€hearing€on€prosecutorialÐ l¼ Ðdelay.€€Nevertheless,€we€will€address€this€issue€based€upon€the€record€before€us€in€order€to€assist€theÐ X ¨ Ðtrial€court€upon€remand.€€Ð D!” ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£,NÝÔ2ê½ÔÚ  ÚBÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝFacts݃3£,NYNÝŒÐ#l!(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àPrior€to€June€29,€1993,€the€defendant€and€his€accomplice€were€arrested€and€being€held€in€theÐ ô$D # ÐAnderson€County€jail€on€charges€unrelated€to€the€subject€robberies.€€On€June€29,€1993,€a€KnoxÐ à%0!$ ÐCounty€detective€drove€to€Anderson€County€to€question€the€defendant€and€his€accomplice€aboutÐ Ì&"% Ðseveral€video€store€robberies€that€had€occurred€in€Knox€County.€€The€defendant€initially€agreed€toÐ ¸'#& Ðtalk€to€the€detective,€but€later€decided€not€to€give€a€statement.€€These€facts€appear€undisputed.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÐ h+¸&* Ðà  àOn€July€1,€1993,€the€defendant€and€his€accomplice€were€transferred€to€the€Knox€County€jail.€Ð ° ÐIt€is€unclear€from€the€record€why€the€defendant€was€transferred€to€the€Knox€County€jail.€€TheÐ œì Ðdefendant€contends€that€it€was€because€he€was€under€ð ðarrestðð€for€the€subject€charges.€€SubsequentÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€first€hearing€on€the€motion€to€dismiss,€the€state€apparently€turned€over€certain€documents€toÐ tÄ Ðdefense€counsel.€€Defense€counsel€filed€a€supplemental€motion€and€attached€uncertified€documentsÐ `° Ðreflecting€that€warrants€were€issued€on€July€1,€1993,€but€not€served€on€the€defendant.€€An€allegedÐ L œ Ðofficerððs€report€attached€to€the€motion€indicates€that€the€warrants€were€ð ðserved€on€the€defendant€atÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€Knox€County€jail.ðð€€Regardless,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€defendant€gave€a€taped€statement€on€JulyÐ $ t Ð1,€1993,€admitting€his€participation€in€the€subject€robberies.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIt€is€undisputed€that€on€July€15,€1993,€the€defendant€received€a€four„year€sentence€on€federalÐ è 8  Ðcharges.€€The€defendant€alleges€that€federal€authorities€sent€Knox€County€a€detainer€letter€inÐ Ô$  ÐSeptember€1993.€€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€state€took€no€further€action€against€the€defendant€until€he€was€indicted€on€July€24,€1995.€Ð ˜è  ÐDefendant€alleges€that€on€October€29,€1996,€the€defendant€was€paroled€from€the€federal€penitentiaryÐ „Ô  Ðand€released€into€the€custody€of€officers€from€Knox€County.€€On€November€1,€1996,€the€defendantÐ pÀ Ðwas€arraigned€on€the€Knox€County€charges,€and€a€trial€date€was€set€for€February€24,€1997.€€TrialÐ \¬ Ðdates€were€continued€several€times€for€reasons€not€set€forth€in€the€record.€€The€defendant€alleges€thatÐ H˜ Ðone€continuance€was€at€his€request,€and€that€he€was€in€federal€custody€at€the€time€one€or€more€trialÐ 4„ Ðdates€were€set.€€He€alleges€that€on€June€27,€1997,€the€defendant€was€found€to€be€in€violation€of€hisÐ  p Ðfederal€parole€and€ordered€to€serve€the€remainder€of€his€four„year€sentence.€€The€technical€recordÐ  \ Ðreveals€a€bond€forfeiture€in€September€1997€based€on€the€defendantððs€failure€to€appear;€however,€theÐ øH Ðforfeiture€was€later€set€aside.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€alleges€that€on€May€1,€1998,€he€was€released€from€the€federal€penitentiary€afterÐ ¼  Ðserving€the€remainder€of€his€sentence€and€transferred€to€Knox€County.€€€A€new€trial€date€was€set€forÐ ¨ø ÐOctober€5,€1998.€€In€the€meantime,€however,€the€defendantððs€bail€was€reduced,€and€the€defendantÐ ”ä Ðwas€released€from€custody.€€On€October€5,€1998,€the€defendant€failed€to€appear€for€trial.€€He€wasÐ €Ð Ðallegedly€arrested€on€February€26,€1999.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àOn€August€17,€1999,€the€defendant€was€convicted€by€a€Knox€County€jury€of€aggravatedÐ D!” Ðrobbery€and€attempted€robbery€and€sentenced€to€nine€years€for€the€aggravated€robbery€and€three€yearsÐ 0"€  Ðfor€the€attempted€robbery.€€Both€sentences€were€set€to€run€concurrently€with€each€other€andÐ #l! Ðconcurrently€ð ðinsofar€as€possibleðð€with€any€time€the€defendant€had€remaining€on€his€federal€sentence.Ð $X" ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£_ÝÔ2ê½ÔÚ  ÚCÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝTrial€Courtððs€Ruling݃3£_C_ÝŒÐà%0!$(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àThe€trial€court€found€misconduct€by€the€state€and€found€the€state€delayed€prosecution€to€gainÐ ¸'#& Ða€tactical€advantage.€€The€trial€court€concluded,€however,€that€any€potential€prejudice€to€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdefendant€regarding€the€loss€of€possibility€of€concurrent€sentencing€could€be€remedied€at€sentencing.€Ð )à$( Ðâ âThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion.€€At€sentencing,€the€trial€court€ran€the€subject€sentencesÐ |*Ì%) ÐÑ1ORÑâ 1âÑ8°Ñâ 1âÑ  Ñconcurrently€with€any€time€remaining€on€the€federal€sentence€ð ðinsofar€as€possible.ðð׃3×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€itÐ ° Ðâ âappears€likely€that€the€federal€sentence€had€already€expired.€€It€is€unclear€from€the€sentencing€hearingÐ œì Ðtranscript€whether€the€trial€court€reduced€the€actual€length€of€each€sentence€in€recognition€ofÐ ˆØ Ðpotential€prejudice€to€the€defendant€as€a€result€of€prosecutorial€delay.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌòòò òÓ  ÓÌDUE€PROCESSó óóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  Óà  àWe€first€examine€the€defendantððs€claim€that€prosecutorial€delay€constituted€a€due€processÐ  ` Ðviolation.Ð ü L  ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ "(º½88)ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£ÑeÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝLegal€Standards݃3£ÑeþeÝŒÐÔ$ (#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àA€delay€between€the€commission€of€an€offense€and€the€initiation€of€adversarial€proceedingsÐ ¬ü  Ðmay€raise€due€process€concerns€under€the€Fifth€Amendment€of€the€United€States€Constitution€andÐ ˜è  ÐArticle€I,€ðð€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòState€v.€Utleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€489,€495€(Tenn.€1997)Ð „Ô  Ð(citing€òòUnited€States€v.€Marionóó,€404€U.S.€307,€324„25,€92€S.€Ct.€455,€465,€30€L.€Ed.€2d€468€(1971)).€Ð pÀ ÐTo€determine€whether€a€due€process€violation€has€occurred€when€the€state€is€aware€that€an€offenseÐ \¬ Ðhas€been€committed,€the€defendant€must€establish:€(1)€a€delay€has€occurred;€(2)€the€delay€causedÐ H˜ Ðprejudice€to€the€defendantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial;€and€(3)€the€state€caused€the€delay€to€obtain€a€tacticalÐ 4„ Ðadvantage€or€to€harass€the€defendant.€€òòMarionóó,€404€U.S.€at€324,€òòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€495€(citingÐ  p ÐòòState€v.€Grayóó,€917€S.W.2d€668,€671€(Tenn.€1996)).€€The€most€important€question,€although€notÐ  \ Ðdeterminative€in€every€case,€is€whether€the€delay€caused€any€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.Ð øH ÐCaricoóó,€968€S.W.2d€280,€285€(Tenn.€1998).€€€The€time€between€the€commission€of€the€offense€andÐ ä4 Ðthe€commencement€of€prosecution€will€also€be€considered.€€òòId.óó€at€284.€€€Ð Ð  ÐÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£OlÝÔ2º½ÔÚ  ÚBÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝAnalysis݃3£Ol|l݌Шø(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àDue€to€the€nature€of€the€record€before€us,€it€is€unclear€whether€the€defendant€was€actuallyÐ €Ð Ðð ðarrestedðð€on€July€1,€1993.€€If€there€was€an€arrest€on€July€1,€1993,€there€will€be€no€reason€to€conductÐ l¼ Ða€due€process€analysis€upon€remand.€€Rather,€the€trial€court€will€conduct€a€speedy€trial€analysis€fromÐ X ¨ Ðthe€date€of€arrest€until€trial.€€However,€if€there€was€no€arrest€prior€to€the€return€of€the€indictment,€theÐ D!” Ðtrial€court€must€conduct€a€due€process€analysis€from€the€date€of€commission€of€the€offense€until€theÐ 0"€  Ðdate€of€indictment.€€Thus,€the€following€due€process€analysis€will€apply€only€if€the€trial€court€findsÐ #l! Ðthat€there€was€no€arrest€prior€to€indictment.€€Ð $X" ÐÌÐ à%0!$ Ðà  àFirstly,€it€must€be€determined€whether€there€was€a€delay.€€The€Knox€County€SheriffððsÐ ° ÐDepartment€was€aware€of€defendantððs€involvement€in€the€robberies€at€least€by€July€1,€1993.€€Thus,Ð œì Ðit€is€undisputed€that€there€was€a€delay€from€this€time€until€the€return€of€the€indictment€in€July€1995.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àSecond,€it€must€be€determined€whether€the€delay€was€intentional€by€the€state€in€order€toÐ `° Ðobtain€a€tactical€advantage€over€or€to€harass€the€defendant.€€No€evidence€was€introduced€concerning€Ð L œ Ðthis€factor;€however,€the€state€offered€no€explanation€for€the€delay.€€The€trial€court€found€the€delay€Ð 8 ˆ Ðwas€to€obtain€a€tactical€advantage.€€Upon€remand,€the€trial€court€is€not€precluded€from€hearingÐ $ t Ðtestimony€concerning€this€issue.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àFinally,€and€most€importantly,€it€must€be€determined€whether€the€delay€caused€prejudice€toÐ è 8  Ðthe€defendantððs€right€to€a€fair€trial.€€The€primary€prejudice€the€defendant€asserts€is€that€the€delayÐ Ô$  Ðcaused€the€loss€of€the€possibility€of€having€his€state€sentences€run€concurrently€with€his€four„yearÐ À  Ðfederal€sentence€imposed€in€July€1993.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€recognize€that€one€can€be€prejudiced€by€losing€the€opportunity€for€concurrent€sentencing.€Ð „Ô  ÐòòSeeóó€òòSmith€v.€Hooeyóó,€393€U.S.€374,€378,€89€S.€Ct.€575,€577,€21€L.€Ed.€2d€607€(1969);€òòState€v.Ð pÀ ÐWallaceóó,€648€S.W.2d€264,€270€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€€However,€we€find€nothing€which€indicatesÐ \¬ Ðthat€loss€of€a€mere€possibility€of€concurrent€sentences€automatically€requires€dismissal€of€charges.€Ð H˜ ÐòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Michael€Dewayne€Simmonsóó,€CCA€No.€M1999„00099„CCA„R3„CD,€Davidson€CountyÐ 4„ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€February€29,€2000,€at€Nashville).€€This€loss€of€opportunity€must€be€examinedÐ  p Ðin€the€context€of€this€case.Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€that€ð ðif€the€defendant€has€additionalÐ ä4 Ðsentences€...€as€a€result€of€conviction€in€...€federal€court,€the€sentence€imposed€shall€be€òòconsecutiveóóÐ Ð  Ðthereto€unless€the€court€shall€determine€in€the€exercise€of€its€discretion€that€òògood€causeóó€exists€to€runÐ ¼  Ðthe€sentences€concurrently€....ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(2)(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€the€subjectÐ ¨ø Ðsentences€could€not€run€concurrently€with€the€federal€sentence€unless€the€trial€court€found€ð ðgoodÐ ”ä Ðcauseðð€to€do€so.€€Upon€remand€it€may€be€necessary€for€the€trial€court€to€address€this€issue.€€It€wouldÐ €Ð Ðappear€that€the€trial€court€has€in€fact€found€ð ðgood€causeðð€since€it€attempted€to€run€the€presentÐ l¼ Ðsentences€concurrently€with€the€federal€sentence;€however,€it€also€appears€likely€that€the€federalÐ X ¨ Ðsentence€had€expired.€€Nevertheless,€the€trial€court€may€re„examine€this€issue€in€light€of€furtherÐ D!” Ðevidence€that€may€be€introduced.€€Ð 0"€  Ðà  àÌà  àAlthough€not€addressed€by€the€parties,€we€note€that€the€defendant€alleges€in€one€of€hisÐ $X" Ðmemoranda€that€he€was€on€ð ðpre„trial€releaseðð€from€the€federal€charge€at€the€time€of€commission€ofÐ ô$D # Ðthe€subject€robberies€in€February€1993.€€We€are€unable€to€conclusively€make€this€determinationÐ à%0!$ Ðbased€on€the€record€before€us.€€We€do€observe,€however,€that€consecutive€sentences€are€òòmandatoryóóÐ Ì&"% Ðwhen€a€defendant€was€on€bail€for€another€offense€when€he€committed€the€subject€felony,€and€he€isÐ ¸'#& Ðconvicted€of€both€offenses.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(3)(C).€€As€a€result,€the€defendant€must€receiveÐ ¤(ô#' Ðconsecutive€sentences€if€he€was€on€bail€for€the€federal€offense€at€the€time€he€committed€the€instantÐ )à$( Ðrobberies.€€Thus,€any€argument€that€the€delay€prejudiced€the€defendant€because€he€lost€the€possibilityÐ |*Ì%) Ðto€have€his€state€sentence€run€concurrently€with€his€federal€sentence€is€totally€without€merit€shouldÐ h+¸&* Ðthis€be€correct.€€The€trial€court€should€address€this€issue€upon€remand.€€€€€€€€€€€Ð T,¤'+ Їà  àThe€defendant€further€alleges€that€the€detective€who€interrogated€him€could€not€rememberÐ ° Ðthe€exact€statement€he€made€to€the€defendant€about€concurrent€sentencing.€€Thus,€the€defendantÐ œì Ðargues€that€the€delay€may€have€caused€part€of€the€detectiveððs€lapse€in€memory.€€We€have€previouslyÐ ˆØ Ðaffirmed€the€denial€of€the€motion€to€suppress€and,€as€did€the€trial€court,€assumed€such€representationsÐ tÄ Ðwere€made.€€Nevertheless,€we€concluded€such€representations€did€not€render€the€confessionÐ `° Ðinadmissible.€€Therefore,€the€alleged€lapse€in€memory€was€not€prejudicial€to€the€defendantððs€rightÐ L œ Ðto€a€fair€trial.€òòóóÐ 8 ˆ ÐÓ  Óòòò òÌÌSPEEDY€TRIALÐ ü L  ÐÌóóó óÓ  Óà  àWe€now€analyze€the€defendantððs€contention€that€he€was€denied€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial.Ð Ô$  ÐÌA.à0  àLegal€StandardsЬü (#(# Ðà  àÌà  àWithout€question,€criminal€defendants€are€constitutionally€and€statutorily€entitled€to€a€speedyÐ „Ô  Ðtrial.€€U.S.€Const.€Amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€Art.€I,€ðð€9;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðð€40„14„101.€€There€is€noÐ pÀ Ðset€time€limit€within€which€the€trial€must€commence;€rather,€consideration€must€be€given€to€theÐ \¬ Ðcircumstances€of€each€case.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€adopted€the€balancing€test€set€forthÐ H˜ Ðin€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,€92€S.€Ct.€2182,€33€L.€Ed.€2d€101€(1972)€as€the€method€forÐ 4„ Ðdetermining€whether€a€defendant's€right€to€a€speedy€trial€has€been€violated.€€òòState€v.€Woodóó,€924Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€342,€346€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€614€S.W.2d€352,€353€(Tenn.€1981).€€If,€afterÐ  \ Ðconducting€this€balancing€test,€it€is€concluded€that€the€defendant€was€in€fact€denied€a€speedy€trial,Ð øH Ðconstitutional€principles€require€that€the€conviction€be€reversed€and€the€criminal€charges€dismissed.€Ð ä4 ÐòòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83€(Tenn.€1973).Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌà  àIn€conducting€this€balancing€test,€we€are€required€to€examine€the€conduct€of€both€theÐ ¨ø Ðprosecution€and€the€defendant,€focusing€primarily€on:€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay;€(2)€the€reason€forÐ ”ä Ðthe€delay;€(3)€whether€defendant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial;€and€(4)€whether€defendant€wasÐ €Ð Ðprejudiced€by€the€delay.€€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.€2d€at€346;€€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84;€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,Ð l¼ Ð938€S.W.2d€1,€12„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996).€€The€most€important€factor€is€whether€the€defendantÐ X ¨ Ðwas€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€776,€778€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€TheÐ D!” Ðmost€important€inquiry€with€regard€to€prejudice€is€whether€the€delay€impaired€the€defendant's€abilityÐ 0"€  Ðto€prepare€a€defense.€€òòId.óó€€A€delay€of€as€long€as€two€years€standing€alone€will€not€support€a€findingÐ #l! Ðof€a€speedy€trial€violation.€òòId.óó€(citing€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€triggering€factor€is€the€length€of€the€delay.€€"Until€there€is€some€delay€which€isÐ à%0!$ Ðpresumptively€prejudicial,€there€is€no€necessity€for€inquiry€into€the€other€factors€that€go€into€theÐ Ì&"% Ðbalance."€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192.€€In€determining€if€there€has€been€a€violationÐ ¸'#& Ðof€the€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€only€the€time€between€the€commencement€of€adversarialÐ ¤(ô#' Ðproceedings€and€the€commencement€of€the€trial€will€be€considered.€€òòCaricoóó,€968€S.W.2d€at€284.€€TheÐ )à$( Ðreturn€of€the€indictment€or€actual€restraint€by€arrest€triggers€the€speedy€trial€analysis.€€òòUtleyóó,€956Ð |*Ì%) ÐS.W.2d€at€492.€Ð h+¸&* ÐÐ T,¤'+ ÐÓ€ $(³08"ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚3£’’ÝÔ2³ÔÚ  ÚBÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝAnalysis݃3£’’¿’݌а(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àAs€previously€stated,€the€triggering€date€for€the€speedy€trial€analysis€upon€remand€will€dependÐ ˆØ Ðupon€whether€defendant€was€actually€arrested€on€July€1,€1993.€€If€so,€that€will€be€the€triggering€date.€Ð tÄ ÐOtherwise,€the€triggering€date€for€the€speedy€trial€analysis€will€be€the€date€of€indictment;€namely,Ð `° ÐJuly€24,€1995.€€Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€first€factor€that€must€be€examined€is€the€length€of€the€delay.€€The€delay€in€this€case€wasÐ $ t Ðeither€four€years€or€six€years.€€Regardless,€this€delay€is€presumptively€prejudicial€to€the€defendant.€Ð  ` ÐòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192.€€This€delay€clearly€triggers€an€evaluation€of€the€otherÐ ü L  ÐòòBarkeróó€factors.€€This€factor€weighs€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àThe€court€must€next€ascertain€the€reasons€for€the€delay.€€The€record€is€silent€as€to€the€reasonÐ À  Ðfor€the€delay€between€July€1993€and€July€1995.€€A€review€of€the€record€shows€that€the€defendant€wasÐ ¬ü  Ðarraigned€on€the€July€1995€indictment€on€November€1,€1996,€allegedly€after€being€released€on€paroleÐ ˜è  Ðfrom€his€federal€sentence.€€€Subsequently,€a€trial€date€was€set€for€February€24,€1997.€€Trial€dates€wereÐ „Ô  Ðcontinued€on€several€occasions,€although€the€record€is€inconclusive€as€to€the€reasons.€€DefenseÐ pÀ Ðmemoranda€suggest€reasons,€some€of€which€would€not€be€the€fault€of€the€defendant.€€Some€suggestedÐ \¬ Ðby€the€state€would€be€the€fault€of€the€defendant.€€Although€there€does€not€appear€to€be€any€bad€faithÐ H˜ Ðon€the€part€of€the€state€from€the€date€of€indictment€until€trial,€the€trial€court€may€re„examine€thisÐ 4„ Ðissue€upon€remand.Ð  p Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àThe€court€must€next€examine€whether€the€appellant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€Ð øH ÐAssertion€of€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€given€great€weight€in€the€determination€of€whether€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendant€was€denied€this€right.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531„32,€92€S.€Ct.€2192„93.€€Failure€to€assert€theÐ Ð  Ðright€implies€a€defendant€does€not€actively€seek€a€swift€trial.€€òòState€v.€Woodóó,€924€S.W.2d€342,€348Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€However,€when€an€accused€is€unaware€of€pending€charges€against€him,€failure€toÐ ¨ø Ðassert€the€right€cannot€be€weighed€against€him.€€òòóóòòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€653„54,€112Ð ”ä ÐS.€Ct.€2686,€2691,€120€L.€Ed.€2d€520,€529€(1992).€€In€this€case€the€defendant€was€not€arrested€on€theÐ €Ð Ðcapias€until€October€29,€1996.€€However,€even€after€that€date,€the€defendant€did€not€assert€his€rightÐ l¼ Ðto€a€speedy€trial€until€the€filing€of€his€motion€on€May€26,€1999,€less€than€3€months€before€trial.€€Thus,Ð X ¨ Ðit€appears€the€defendant€did€not€actively€seek€a€swift€trial.€€This€factor€weighs€heavily€in€favor€of€theÐ D!” Ðstate.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àFinally,€and€most€importantly,€it€must€be€determined€whether€the€defendant€was€prejudicedÐ $X" Ðby€the€delay.€The€defendant€has€not€established€prejudice€due€to€the€alleged€lapse€in€memory€of€theÐ ô$D # Ðdetective€relating€to€representations€of€concurrent€sentencing.€€Thus,€upon€remand€the€defendant€can€Ð à%0!$ Ðonly€establish€prejudice€based€upon€the€loss€of€concurrent€sentencing.€€As€we€discussed€in€the€dueÐ Ì&"% Ðprocess€portion€of€this€opinion,€this€issue€must€be€determined€under€the€directions€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.Ð ¸'#& ÐP.€32(c)(3)(C)€or€32(c)(2).€€ò òòòÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÌÌÓ  ÓÌÐ T,¤'+ ÐDUE€PROCESS€/€SPEEDY€TRIAL€SUMMARY€Ð ° ÐÓj¢ÓÌà  àó óóóThe€most€crucial€issue€upon€remand€will€be€whether€defendant€can€establish€prejudiceÐ ˆØ Ðresulting€from€the€alleged€loss€of€concurrent€sentencing.€€Prejudice€is€required€to€establish€a€dueÐ tÄ Ðprocess€violation€and€is€the€most€important€factor€in€establishing€a€speedy€trial€violation.€€We€furtherÐ `° Ðconclude€that€in€order€to€establish€prejudice,€the€defendant€must€establish€the€loss€of€the€reasonableÐ L œ Ðprobability€that€his€sentences€would€run€concurrently€with€the€federal€sentence.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌÓ  Óòòò òDIRECTIONS€UPON€REMANDÐ ü L  Ðóóó óÓ  ÓÌà  àUpon€remand€the€trial€court€shall€do€the€following:€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ !(&Ú80$ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£r¦ÝÔ2&ÚÔ(Ú  Ú1Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€should€determine€whether€the€defendant€was€under€ð ðarrestðð€by€KnoxÐ ¬ü  ÐCounty€in€July€1993€in€order€to€determine€the€appropriate€dates€for€the€due€process/Ð ˜è  Ðspeedy€trial€analysis.€€For€purposes€of€review,€the€trial€court€shall€make€findings€asÐ „Ô  Ðto€the€factors€of€any€required€due€process€analysis€(prejudice€and€intentional€delayÐ pÀ Ðfor€tactical€advantage€or€harassment)€and€all€4€factors€of€the€speedy€trial€analysisÐ \¬ Ð(length€of€delay,€reasons€for€delay,€the€defendantððs€assertion€of€his€right€to€a€speedyÐ H˜ Ðtrial,€and€prejudice).€€Ô#†XòXXXõ¼3#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼XXXòÔ݃3£r¦«¦ÝŒÐ4„` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£$ªÝÔ2&ÚÔ(Ú  Ú2Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€should€determine€whether€the€defendant€was€on€bail€for€the€federalÐ  \ Ðoffense€at€the€time€he€committed€the€subject€robberies.€€If€so,€concurrent€sentencingÐ øH Ðwas€not€possible€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(2)(C),€and€the€defendant€can€notÐ ä4 Ðestablish€prejudice.€€There€can€be€no€due€process€violation,€and€this€factor€will€weighÐ Ð  Ðheavily€against€the€defendant€in€conducting€a€speedy€trial€analysis.€€Ýƒ3£$ª]ªÝŒÐ¼ ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àÔ#†XòXXXõ¼Á©#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼XXXòÔÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£6­ÝÔ2&ÚÔ(Ú  Ú3Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝIf€the€defendant€was€not€on€bail€for€the€federal€offense€at€the€time€he€committed€theÐ ”ä Ðsubject€robberies,€a€further€inquiry€will€be€required.€€The€trial€court€should€determineÐ €Ð Ðwhether€concurrent€sentencing€was€a€reasonable€probability€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.Ð l¼ ÐApp.€P.€32(c)(2)€(ð ðgood€causeðð).€€Ô#†XòXXXõ¼­#ÔÔ‡Xõ¼XXXòÔ݃3£6­o­ÝŒÐX ¨` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýà  àÝ‚3£²¯ÝÔ2&ÚÔ(Ú  Ú4Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€shall€enter€appropriate€findings€and€an€order.€€If€the€trial€courtÐ 0"€  Ðoverrules€the€motion€to€dismiss,€it€shall€reinstate€the€judgments€of€conviction.€€If€theÐ #l! Ðtrial€court€grants€the€motion€to€dismiss,€it€shall€enter€an€order€accordingly.€€EitherÐ $X" Ðparty€may€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€to€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b)€andÐ ô$D # Ð(c).€€Ýƒ3£²¯ë¯ÝŒÐà%0!$` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýò òòòÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÐ T,¤'+ ÐCONCLUSIONóóó óÐ ° ÐÌÓ  Óà  àWe€conclude€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€support€the€convictions,€and€further€concludeÐ ˆØ Ðthat€the€trial€court€did€not€err€in€denying€the€motion€to€suppress€the€confession.€€However,€the€matter€Ð tÄ Ðmust€be€remanded€for€another€hearing€on€the€due€process/speedy€trial€issue.€€Therefore,€the€judgmentÐ `° Ðof€the€trial€court€is€vacated,€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€another€hearing€on€the€motion€to€dismiss.Ð L œ ÐÓ  Óà  àÌÌÓ´Óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à_____________________________________Ð  ` Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGEÔ#†XòXXXõ¼O¯#ÔÔ‡ XJª XXXòÔÐ ü L  ÐÓ ÓòòÔ#†XòX X XJªÑµ#ÔóóØ! !ØÓ€ )(ê½88!Ó