WPC UBV % nX 0P 4\ p 0p 0D w@H 0J 0T 0^& 0h 0r 0|^ 0 0` 1u U,e 0dU, B!U6>U*tB)DC AM  D3W; 0@v~v AOA 0D D/K Bz<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXH93|X <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  ԡ (D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0    D  D D D    Ӏ2 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 d<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd-(C << G$$$$'dxd 1 !  #d#% D    &&   YYY FILED&XAugust9,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk    !#d#% D     $       &&SGSmaintainedanofficeinKentucky.("$     z !#d#% D     $       &&Moreover,contrarytotheStatesargument,therecorddoesnotmakeclearthatTPEevermadearightfuldemanduponthedefendantforreturnofthetrucktoit.EvenifTPEhadmadearightfuldemand,itappearsthatTPEhadcloseditsTennesseeofficepriortocontactingthedefendantaboutthetrucksreturn.Thus,thedefendantcouldnothaveaccountedforthetrucktoTPEinTennessee.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &##Xd&###Xd#% D    `  X 7XXdd7  \RA'\  &L)+(;+'h|` 81 `L  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE  @ JUNE1996SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE,   )       )  C.C.A.NO.01C019510CC00353   Appellant, 򀀀  )      ) RUTHERFORDCOUNTY VS.      )      ) HON.J.S.DANIEL,WILLIAMODOM,    ) JUDGE      )  Appellee.    ) (TheftStateappeal) FORTHEAPPELLANT:    FORTHEAPPELLEE: CHARLESW.BURSON    GUYR.DOTSON,JR. AttorneyGeneral&Reporter   102S.MapleSt.        Murfreesboro,TN37130 CHARLOTTEH.RAPPUHN Asst.AttorneyGeneral450JamesRobertsonPkwy.        Nashville,TN372430493    WILLIAMWHITESELL DistrictAttorneyGeneralJudicialBldg.,Ste.303Murfreesboro,TN37130                      OPINIONFILED:____________________ AFFIRMED JOHNH.PEAY, Judge  @ OPINION       ThedefendantwasindictedinRutherfordCounty,Tennessee,fortheftovertenthousanddollars($10,000).Thecasewasdismissedbythetrialjudgeforlackofjurisdiction.TheStatenowappealsasofright.Weaffirmthelowercourt.  OnApril1,1994,TropicalPlantExpress( TPE)enteredintoacontractwithSGSLeasing,Inc.( SGS)fortheleaseofseveraltractortrailerrigs.ThisleaseprohibitedanysubleasesoftherigsbyTPEtoanyoneelse.However,onJune17,1994,TPEenteredintoa VehicleLeaseAgreementwiththedefendantforthesubleaseofoneoftherigs,a1990Peterbilt.ThedefendantsignedthisleaseandtookpossessionofthePeterbiltinMurfreesboro,RutherfordCounty,Tennessee.ThedefendantdidnotknowthatSGSwastheactualownerofthetruck,didnotknowaboutTPEscontractwithSGS,anddidnotknowthathisleasewithTPEviolatedanyotheragreement.    TPEdefaultedonitsleasewithSGS.Accordingly,TPEbeganreturningtheleasedequipmenttoSGS.SGSandthedefendantweremutuallyunawareofeachother,andeachothersrelationshiptothePeterbilt,untilAugust1994.Atthattime,TPEinformedSGSofthesubleaseandtoldthedefendantthatitdidnothavetherighttoleasethetrucktohim.OnAugust18,1994,SGScalledthedefendantinFlorida,explainedthatitwastheactualownerofthetruck,anddemandeditsreturn.ThedefendantrefusedtoreturnthetruckonthebasisthatTPEowedhimmoneyinconjunctionwithhisoperationofthetruck.DespiterepeatedrequestsbySGS,thedefendantneverreturnedthetrucktoit.Eventually,SGScommencedcriminalactionagainstthedefendantinKentucky, ,   ׀whichwasdismissedforlackofjurisdiction.SGSthenpursuedthisprosecutionofthedefendant.TheonlytransactionwhichthedefendanttookinTennesseewithrespecttothistruckwassigningtheleasewithTPEandtakingdeliveryofthetruck.  Tennessseecourtshavejurisdictionoverthosecriminaloffenseswhichare:     1. committedinthisstate;2. commencedoutsidethisstateandconsummatedinthisstate;and 3. commencedwithinthisstate[and]consummatedoutsideitsboundaries. D   T.C.A.3911103(1991Repl.).TheStatearguesthatRutherfordCountycriminalcourthasjurisdictionoverthismatterbecausethetheftcommencedthereandwasconsummatedoutsideofTennessee.Wedisagree.  Thedefendantwaschargedwiththeftofpropertyovertenthousanddollars($10,000). Apersoncommitstheftofpropertyif,withintenttodeprivetheownerofproperty,thepersonknowinglyobtainsorexercisescontroloverthepropertywithouttheownerseffectiveconsent.T.C.A.3914103(1991Repl.).TheStatearguesthatthedefendantcommencedthisoffensewhenhetookdeliveryofthetruckinMurfreesboro,therebyobtainingcontroloverit.ThatthedefendanthadabsolutelynocriminalmensreaatthetimeheinitiallytookcontrolisirrelevantaccordingtotheState,becausesuchashowing wouldrequiretheStatetoshowthatthecrimewasconsummatedhereinordertoestablishjurisdiction,incontraventionofthejurisdictionstatute.  TheStatesargumentattemptstomakealawfultakingofpropertyaninchoatecrime:merelyawaitingtheformationoftherequisiteevilintentfortheoffensetospringfullblownintoexistence.Wedonotthinkthatsuchaconstructionis accordingtothefairimportofthetermsofourjurisdictionandtheftstatutes.T.C.A.3911104(1991Repl.).WeagreewiththeStatethatournewtheftstatuteincorporatestheoldcrimeoffraudulentbreachoftrust,whichinvolvesanauthorizedtakingofpropertyfollowedbyawrongfulappropriationoftheproperty:forinstance,abaileerefusingtoreturnbailedpropertyasrequiredbythetermsofthebailment.See,e.g.,Statev.Silberman,644S.W.2d410(Tenn.Crim.App.1982).However,aswasreiteratedinthatcase, 8       itisthefraudulentappropriationofthepropertywhichconstitutestheoffense[offraudulentbreachoftrust],andnotthehiringorobtainingpossessionasbailee,andconsequentlytheplacewhere[thefraudulentappropriationoccurs]istheplacewheretheoffenseiscommittedandwhereitispunishable. D   D   Id.at413(quotingLovelacev.State,80Tenn.(12Lea)721,723(1883)(changesinSilberman).  AtthetimethedefendanttookpossessionofthetruckinTennessee,hedidsopursuanttoavalidcontract.Thatthecontractviolatedanotheragreementofwhichthedefendantwasunawaredoesnotrenderwrongful,inthecriminalcontext,thedefendantsoriginaltakingofthetruck.ThedefendantdidnotbecomeawarethatSGSwastheactualowneruntilAugust,1994.AtthattimethedefendantwasinFloridaandatthattime,hedecidedtocontinueexercisingcontroloverthetruckincontraventionofSGSswishes.OnlythendidthedefendantengageinconductwhichmightbeconsideredtheftunderTennesseelaw.Nopartofthisconduct,however,occurredinTennessee.Accordingly,ourcourtsdonothavejurisdictionoverthedefendantsallegedlycriminalbehaviorinFlorida.  TheStatesargumentthatjurisdictionattachesbecausethedefendantfailedtoaccountforthepropertyinTennesseeisalsomisplaced.AcceptingtheStatescontentionthatSGSwasthelegalownerofthetruck,thedefendantsdutytoaccountaroseinfavorofSGS,notTPE. .   ׀SGShadnoofficeorotherfacilityinTennessee,andanydutytoaccountwasthereforelocatedelsewhere.  Therulingofthecourtbelowisaffirmed.       ______________________________       JOHNH.PEAY,JudgeCONCUR:______________________________DAVIDG.HAYES,Judge______________________________%  WILLIAMM.BARKER,Judge