WPC )Z쾷7h 0#PIV*[C"p v6 8<&f^0ry`y߀wd5kljѺb 4 \dPG~x,R-SӜy,A"Bmm,zH XE/fg3;Ϸڊ[]`m{v ECs5itz:>R#$H<fC~d˖$IϪѱjD2-!\OS ٚu8_:d`rx|h0`ɇR?ON滾%8/JwX1Lm8bYgxXˈ6Ky<wt_Zڽ1S sh{]bz=5א;HC_vVU:/)%L)uƗWh(cm?{.` i@٨F +7HsTX"!# F UNQ % 0( U: b w@ 4O c 0r U: 0. U: < U: !(.IU:wwwwwwwwwwwww B D3 0D AOE 0DZ D/ BHP LaserJet 4M PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,|AZ"Arial Regular- -  Ge   E  D    Ӏx%3|x (AN$ XXXX  X X  0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular(*2p$ !   X^XXX &L&X X^   `   0  ,  AZ"Arial Regular   f$X2XXX&&F&X X2   `   1    DefendantcitestwoparticularopinionsofthisCourttendingtoshowthatthese `  offensesencompassedthesameconduct.SeeStatev.Hoyt,928S.W.2d935(Tenn.Crim. 0  App.1995);Statev.Wooden,658S.W.2d553(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).Thesecasesdidnot   involveTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure8(a),butinsteadRule8(b),whichcommandsawhollydifferentstandard:itpermitsjoinderwhentheoffensesconstitutepartsofacommon  @ schemeorplanoriftheyareofthesameorsimilarcharacter.Tenn.R.Crim.P.8(b) p  (emphasisadded).Suchaninquiryisnotpertinenttoourdiscussioninthiscase.,  AZ"Arial Regular X$n XXX  XX$n   Ad FILEDl     January21,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. lAppellateCourt  Clerk  $  f$ X2XXX &&F&X X2   `   1    DefendantcitestwoparticularopinionsofthisCourttendingtoshowthatthese `  offensesencompassedthesameconduct.SeeStatev.Hoyt,928S.W.2d935(Tenn.Crim. 0  App.1995);Statev.Wooden,658S.W.2d553(Tenn.Crim.App.1983).Thesecasesdidnot   involveTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure8(a),butinsteadRule8(b),whichcommandsawhollydifferentstandard:itpermitsjoinderwhentheoffenses&&F&& &&FC&&&F # CC## &&F& C#constitutepartsofacommon  @ schemeorplanoriftheyareofthesameorsimilarcharacter.Tenn.R.Crim.P.8(b)  8 (emphasisadded).Suchaninquiryisnotpertinenttoourdiscussioninthiscase.,cAZ"Arial Regular d 'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !      ` KXXvKTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdd7       r*<,(j 8 `@E<f  tt0"t` rߛ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  ATKNOXVILLEOCTOBERSESSION,1998  STATEOFTENNESSEE,  )  C.C.A.NO.03C019710CR00483 `  `     h   )  `  ` Appellee,   h   ) `   `     h   ) `     h   )   WASHINGT  ON  SULLIVAN COUNTY `  VS. `     h   )   `   `     h   )  HON.LYNNW.BROWN  `   J.D.HICKMAN,    h   )  JUDGE  `  `     h   )  `  ` Appellant.   h   )  (Theft;  ForgeryCertifiedQuestion `  `     h   )   ofLaw)    `    ONAPPEALFROMTHEJUDGMENTOFTHE P CRIMINALCOURTOFWASHINGTONCOUNTY  P   FORTHEAPPELLANT: h     FORTHEAPPELLEE: @!   JULIEA.MARTIN     h       JOHNKNOXWALKUP 0# P.O.Box426   h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter ($ Knoxville,TN379010426 `     h     TODDR.KELLEY `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h     425FifthAvenueNorth `     h     Nashville,TN37243 `     h     GREELEYWELLS `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     JOECRUMLEY `     h     AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     P.O.Box38 `     h     Jonesborough,TN  OPINIONFILED________________________  AFFIRMED  DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE  8 /0S   v 7   dXXd7OPINION v `     ` TheDefendant,J.D.Hickman,pursuanttoTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure3(b)and  TennesseeRule s ofCriminalProcedure37(b)(2)(i),appeals  acertifiedquestionoflawdispositiveofthisaction.ThisappealconcernsfivechargesagainstDefendant,aformerattorney,fortheftoffundsentrustedtohimbyhisclients.InFebruary1997,DefendantwasconvictedoftheftbyajuryinWashingtonCounty.TheStatesubsequentlycontinued  to persue  pursue its  prosecutionof  three  remainingchargespendinginSullivanCounty.Soonthereafter,DefendantwaschargedinWashingtonCountyGeneralSessionsCourtwiththefinaloffense"theftover$500. ` Defendantmovedtodismiss  the    four charges remaining  chargesbaseduponanallegedviolationofTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure8(a),whichDefendantclaimsmandatedjoinderof  all  charges.Thetrialcourtdeniedhismotion,andDefendantpleadedguiltytoall  fouroffenses,  reservingforappealthiscertifiedquestionoflaw:DoesTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure8(a)requirethejoinderorconsolidationofDefendantschargesinWashingtonandSullivanCountiesfortrial?Ifso,wemustnecessarilyaddresstherelatedquestionofwhetheraviolationofRule8(a)requiresdismissalofallnonjoinedcharges.WefindthatRule8(a)doesnotmandatejoinderofDefendantsoffensesfortrial,andwethereforeaffirmhisguiltypleas. ` OnJune5,1996,theSullivanCountyGrandJuryissuedapresentmentallegingthatDefendantcommittedtheftofpropertyvaluedbetween$10,000and 8^/0 $60,000inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotated3914103.ThistheftfromtheestateofGeorgettaGarrettShortoccurredbetweenAugust10,1995andFebruary23,1996.OnSeptember3,1996,theWashingtonCountyGrandJuryindictedDefendantfortheftofpropertymorethan$60,000betweenthedatesofAugust1995andMarch1996.ThesefundsweretakenfromtheestateofClariceMoorePeter.OnOctober9,1996,theSullivanCountyGrandJuryissuedapresentmentagainstDefendantfortheftofpropertybetween$1,000and$10,000.Inaddition,CountIIofthispresentmentchargedDefendantwithaccomplishingthetheftfromthisthirdvictim,ZeableQueen,byforginghersignatureinviolationof3914114.OnOctober30,1996,theSullivanCountyGrandJuryissuedapresentmentfortheftofpropertymorethan$60,000fromJamieMooreHall,thesisterofvictimClariceMoorePeter.ThispresentmentallegedthatthetheftoccurredbetweenNovember21,1994andJuly19,1995.Finally,sometimeafter  thetrialinWashingtonCounty,  Defendantwaschargedwiththeftover$500intheWashingtonCountyGeneralSessionsCourtforacceptingpaymentfromclientFernDulaneyandfailingtoperformservicesorreturnpayment. ` TheStateproceededtotrialfirstinWashingtonCountyonthePeterindictment.ThejuryreturnedaguiltyverdictonFebruary25,1997,andDefendantwassentencedinMarch.Twomonthslater,DefendantmovedtodismissallremainingchargesagainsthimbaseduponanallegedviolationofTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure8(a)onmandatoryjoinder.Afterthetrialcourtdeniedhismotion,Defendantpleadedguiltytoalloffensesandreservedthecertifiedquestionatissuehere. 9p02 Ї ` TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure8(a)states:8 ` Twoormoreoffensesshallbejoinedinthesameindictment,presentment,orinformation,witheachoffensestatedinaseparatecount,orconsolidatedpursuanttoRule13iftheoffensesarebaseduponthesameconductorarisefromthesamecriminalepisodeandifsuchoffensesareknowntotheappropriateprosecutingofficialatthetimeofthereturnoftheindictment(s),presentment(s),orinformation(s)andiftheyarewithinthejurisdictionofasinglecourt.AdefendantshallnotbesubjecttoseparatetrialsformultipleoffensesfallingwithinthissubsectionunlesstheyareseveredpursuanttoRule14. ` !` ! TheAdvisoryCommissionelaboratedonthe  primarypurpose  ofRule8(a)initscommentsappendedtotherule:8 `  TheCommissionwishestomakeclearthatsection(a)ismeanttostopthepracticebysomeprosecutingattorneysof savingbackoneormorechargesarisingfromthesameconductorfromthesamecriminalepisode.Suchotherchargesarebarredfromfutureprosecutionifknowntotheappropriateprosecutingofficialatthetimethattheotherprosecutioniscommenced,butdeliberatelynotpresentedtoagrandjury. Appropriateprosecutingofficialshallbesoconstruedastoachievethepurposeofthisrule,whichisthepreventionofadeliberateandwillful savingbackofknownchargesforfutureprosecution.Therefusalofthegrandjurytoactuponsuchotherchargeswouldnotbeaviolationofthisjoinderrulesoastobarfutureprosecutionofsuchcharges.Ӏ ` !` !  ` Therelevantthresholdquestioniswhethertheoffensesarebaseduponthesameconductorarisefromthesamecriminalepisode.Iftheydonot,weneednotexaminethesecondandthird  componentsofthe R  r ulemandatingjoinder.  Defendantarguesthathisoffensesare baseduponthesameconductorarisefromthesamecriminalepisodeundertherulebecause(1)therecordsintheShort,Hall,andPetercaseswereseizedfromDefendantshomeonthesamedate,and(2)theShortandPeterthefts coveredthesameroughtimeperiod.DefendantalsosupportshisconclusionbymaintainingthatTennesseeBureauofInvestigationAgentSlagleinvestigatedallfourcases,thoughheeventuallytransferredtheSullivanCountycasestoAgentMcCauley. 9p02 Ї ` TBIagentinvolvement,whetherinvestigatoryorprosecutorial,isirrelevanttotheissueofwhethertheseoffensesconstitutethesameconductorcriminalepisode.WhiletheagencysactionisgermanetothesecondrequirementofRule8(a),seeStatev.RobertL.Hardy,No.03C019703CR00098,1998WL 0 8504,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Jan.12,1998)(examininginvolvementbyvariousenforcementagenciestodetermineknowledgeby appropriateprosecutingofficial);weneednotevaluatethesecondandthird  componentsbecause  weconcludethatDefendantsoffensesdonotencompassthesameconductorcriminalepisodewithinthemeaningofRule8(a). ` InStatev.Dunning,762S.W.2d142(Tenn.Crim.App.1988),acase ` procedurallyandfactuallysimilartothecaseatbar,thisCourtexamineduponcertifiedquestionoflawwhetherthetrialcourtproperlydeniedthedefendantsmotiontodismisschargesnotjoinedwithapreviousindictmentagainsthim.Id. "0 at142.Dunningsoldillegalnarcoticstolawenforcementonthreeoccasions"March6,March10,andMarch11,1986.OnMarch10,DunningsoldcocainetoanundercoverofficeroftheOrganizedCrimeStrikeForce.Id. `(  at143.HewasindictedforthisoffenseonSeptember10,1986.OnDecember10,1986,DunningwasindictedforsalesofcocainetoShelbyCountyMetroNarcoticsofficersonMarch6andMarch11.Id. 0.$&  ` InDunning,  thisCourt  rejectedthedefendantsclaimthatRule8(a)barred 2(* prosecutionofthesecondindictment:8 `  Theconductintheseseparateindictmentsisnotsubjecttomandatoryjoinderbytherule.Theterm sameconductrefersto asingleactionwhichmaybedivisibleintodistinctoffenses.The separateactsofsellingcocainetodifferentofficersfromtwodistinct 8x/1 lawenforcementinvestigationsondifferentdaysisnotasingleactionbutaseriesofindependentlymotivatedoccurrences.- ` !` !  Id.at14344. H   ` Here,Defendantcommittedmultipleactsoftheftonmultipledatesoverthecourseofasmanyasfouryears,beginningnotlongafterhisadmissiontopracticelawandcontinuinguntilhistransgressionswerebroughttolight.Thoughheremovedmoniesfromtheaccountsofhis  clients  oninnumerableoccasions,thewithdrawalswerecollectivelyprosecutedasone  aggregatetheft  pervictimbecauseofhis  sustained larcendous  larcenous schemeto  depletethefinancesofeachdistinctvictim.  SeeStatev.Byrd,968S.W.2d290,291(Tenn.1998).We   h concludethatDefendantcommitteda seriesofindependentlymotivatedoccurrencesasperceivedbythisCourtinDunning.SeeDunning,762S.W.2d H at144;seealsoStatev.Tuttle,914S.W.2d926,930(Tenn.Crim.App.1995) !8 (concludingthatRule8doesnotapplywhenrecorddidnotreflectanyconnectionbetweenburglaryandmurderotherthanfactthattheyoccurredtendaysapart).    N CC C C  1      כ x%  ` Morerecently,oursupremecourtillustratedwhenRule8(a)mayapply. X)! SeeStatev.Shepherd,902S.W.2d895,90304(Tenn.1995).InShepherd,the H+!# courtheldthattwooffensesareproperlyjoinedunderRule8(a)when theevidenceofoneoffense[is]inextricablyconnectedwiththeevidenceintheother.Id.at904.Inthecaseatbar,theevidenceofeachoffenseisnot 1') inextricablyconnectedwiththeevidenceintheotheroffenses.TheShort,Hall,andPetercasesrequiredspecificproofofthedebitswhichDefendantmadefromeachindividualaccountbelongingtotheclientandwhichhefailedtodisburseinanapprovedmannerforapermittedpurpose.Similarly,theQueenandDulaneycaseseachrequiredproofofaspecificeventnotrelevanttoanyoftheother  crimes.   `   This  Court  more recentlyexaminedwhen  offensesarisefromthesamecriminalepisode.SeeStatev.JerryBurke,No.02C019510CR00319,1996WL  710919,at*1,*4(Tenn.Crim.App.,Jackson,Dec.12,1996).InBurke,we p concludedthattheoffensesaroseoutofasinglecriminalepisodewithinthemeaningofRule8(a)andwereproperlyconsolidatedfortrialwhenthedefendantscommittedaggravatedrobbery,attemptedaggravatedrobbery,andtwocountsofespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingduringonediscreteeventwithinaperiodofhoursononeevening.Id.at*1*2. $   ` Clearly,thesetheftsdonotqualifyasasinglecriminalepisode.AlthoughtherangeoftimeduringwhichthetheftsoccurredoverlapssomewhatincertainofDefendantscases,theoffensesplainlycannotbeconsideredsegmentsofonediscreteeventorhappening"one episode.Weconcludethattheseoffensesdidnotconstitutethesameconductorcriminalepisode.Therefore,thetrialcourtproperlydeniedDefendantsmotiontodismiss. ` WeaffirmthetrialcourtsjudgmentofconvictionfortheftandforgeryarisingfromDefendantsguiltypleas. 9p02 Ӏ   `     h     ______________________________ `   `     h   DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGECONCUR:__________________________  _____  GARYR.WADE,   JUD   PRESIDINGJUDGE                                        _______________________________THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE      `