ÿWPCk …# VUNa %¯ 0gµw@ 4\ p  {(‡ 0«¯ 0DZ 0Jž 0Tè 0^< 0hš 0r 0|t 0†ð 0v 1u 0d{U >ß BB):DCc AM¦U*ó8sU D3È:ûv~5 0@³vÓó AOÆÆ 0DÛ D/ BN˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(?µ7$¡¡Òx°ÒÔ€V'VXXÔÓÓ êDëDìíîgïdðÕ D  Ó€Ô¡¨ 3|x ($¡¡([(3®:$¤¤Ý ƒµ7!ÝÒx°ÒÔ€VÆpVXXÔÓÓÝ  Ýà Ð àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman d% Line 7 d$$$$7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial .Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ x ÒÒ ! ÒÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€'ÔÔ€'ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€'XÔÌÌSeptemberÏ18,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourt€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó iÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ x ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€aggravated€assault€was€apparently€reduced€to€simple€assault,€but€it€is€unclear€whetherÏthis€action€was€the€result€of€the€juryððs€acquittal€or€dismissal€by€the€trial€judge.Ì####'ÿÿdxd 0Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€"ÔÒ x ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€defendant€was€later€indicted€by€the€Franklin€County€grand€jury€for€his€failure€toÏappear€on€the€August€trial€date.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÒ x ÒÒ ° ÒÓÓÝ  ÝÔT€ Ô›Ñ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€"ŠÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€f2VXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ќـ€ÙßR€&(%A1-j|` û `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS̛̜à@ àAT€NASHVILLEó óÌÌœà@ àò òAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌó ó›ÌÔ€"XÔÌò òSTATE€OF€œTENNESSEE,›à àà àà à)à àC.C.A.€NO.€01C01„9610„CC„00423Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌœà àà àAppellee,›à àà àà à)à àFRANKLIN€COUNTYÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.›€John€W.€RollinsÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó ó(Resisting€Arrest)ò òÌPAUL€MAX€QUANDT,€JR.à àà àœ)›à àó ó(Simple€œAssault)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àà àò òAppellant.à àà àà à)ó ó›ÌÌÌÌœò òFOR›€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌPAUL€MAX€QUANDT,€JR.à àà àœà àJOHN›€KNOX€WALKUPÌó óPro€Seò òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌ3145€Old€Estill€Springs€RoadÌWinchester,€Tennessee€37398Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òPETER€M.€COUGHLANÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àó óAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243Ìò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSTEPHEN€M.€BLOUNTÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à1€South€Jefferson€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWinchester,€Tennessee€37398ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌò òÌOPINION€FILED:___________________ÌÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌÌÌÌJOE€H.€WALKER,€IIIÌSp.€JUDGEó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌœÌÌ›à@ àœòòò òO€P€I€N€I€O€N›ÌÌÓÓó óóóÔ€"ŠÔà àThe€defendant€appeals,€pro€se,€a€jury€verdict€finding€him€guilty€of€resisting€œarrest›Ïand€simple€assault.€€The€jury€assessed€a€fine€of€$500.00€for€resisting€œarrest›€and€$50.00€forÏsimple€assault.€€The€trial€judge€imposed€a€sentence€of€six€months,€suspended,€for€resistingÏarrest,€and€six€months,€suspended,€for€assault,€consecutive€to€the€sentence€for€resistingÏarrest.€€The€trial€judge€required€one€hundred€hours€of€unpaid€community€service.Ìà àThe€defendant€filed€a€timely€motion€for€a€new€trial,€alleging€that€the€court€decreedÏconsecutive€sentences€contrary€to€the€statute€and€case€law.€€The€defendant,€pro€se,€filedÏan€additional€motion€for€new€trial€some€four€and€one„half€months€later,€on€April€25,€1996.€ÏAn€order€was€entered€on€April€26,€1996,€overruling€the€motion€for€a€new€trial.€€There€wasÏno€indication€on€the€order€otherwise,€so€this€Court€assumes€the€trial€court€allowed€theÏamendment€and€considered€all€issues.€€Ìà àThe€defendant€presents€the€following€issues€for€consideration:Ìà à1.€€Whether€the€trial€court€had€the€jurisdiction€and€authority€to€hear€this€œcase,Ïwhether€it€was€an€erroneous€trial,€and€whether€the€trial€court€€followed€proper€procedureÏand€due€process;›Ìà à2.€€Whether€the€court€erred€when€no€plea€or€arraignment€was€made€on€part€of€theÏœcharges;›Ìà à3.€€Whether€the€court€erred€by€not€filing€a€written€order€on€all€motions€before€œtrial;›Ìà à4.€€Whether€the€court€erred€when€perjured€testimony€was€used€by€the€officers€andÏthe€Assistant€D.A.€knew€this€perjured€testimony€was€used€to€sway€the€minds€of€theÏœjurors;›Ìà à5.€€Whether€the€court€erred€when€it€pronounced€consecutive€œsentences;›Ìà à6.€€Whether€the€court€erred€in€not€ordering€a€new€œtrial›€upon€learning€that€aÏmember€of€the€jury€panel€was€the€husband€of€the€Assistant€D.A.ððs€former€œsecretary;›Ìà à7.€€Whether€the€court€erred€when€it€continued€to€allow€the€Assistant€D.A.€toÏprosecute€the€defendant€after€being€notified€that€a€federal€lawsuit€was€pending€againstÏthe€Assistant€œD.A;›ÌÌà à8.€€Whether€the€court€erred€when€it€proceeded€with€the€prosecution€against€theÏdefendant€when€there€was€no€reason€for€the€officers€to€be€on€the€private€posted€propertyÏwithout€a€valid€œwarrant;›Ìà à9.€€Whether€the€court€erred€when€it€kept€a€small€handgun€of€the€œdefendant;›Ìœ€€€€€€€€€10.›€€Whether€the€court€erred€in€failing€to€enforce€a€prior€order€entered€by€the€œcourt;Ïand›Ìœ€€€€€€€€€11.›€€Whether€the€court€erred€by€proceeding€on€an€indictment€not€properlyÏcompleted.Ìò òòòà@ àProcedural€BackgroundÌóóó óà àThe€defendant€was€indicted€by€the€Franklin€County€œgrand›€œjury›€in€July,€1994,€forÏthe€offenses€of€evading€arrest,€resisting€arrest,€and€vandalism.€€He€was€also€indicted€byÏthe€Franklin€County€œgrand›€œjury›€in€September,€1994,€for€the€œoffenses›€of€aggravatedÏassault,€unlawful€possession€of€a€weapon,€and€felony€possession€of€a€weapon.€€The€casesÏwere€consolidated€for€trial.Ìà àThe€state€elected€not€to€proceed€on€the€charge€of€evading€arrest,€but€theÏremaining€€charges€were€presented€at€a€jury€trial€in€April,€1995,€with€the€HonorableÏBuddy€œD.€Perry›€œpresiding.€›€The€trial€judge€did€not€allow€the€misdemeanor€weaponsÏcharge€to€go€to€the€jury.€€The€jury€found€the€defendant€not€guilty€of€the€offense€ofÏfelony€possession€of€a€weapon,€but€was€unable€to€reach€a€unanimous€verdict€on€theÏcharges€of€resisting€arrest,€vandalism,€and€œthe€lesser›€included€charge€of€simple€assault.œ× ƒ) ××  ×›€ÏThe€trial€judge€declared€a€mistrial€on€the€three€remaining€misdemeanor€charges,€and€theÏmatter€was€reset€for€another€court€date€with€regard€to€those€charges.Ìà àThose€charges€were€set€for€jury€trial€to€be€held€on€August€21,€1995,€before€theÏsame€trial€judge.€€The€state€alleges€that€the€defendant€did€not€appear€for€trial€on€thatÏdate.œ× ƒ+ ××  ×›€€à àDue€to€the€possible€conflict€that€the€original€trial€judge€might€have€as€aÏwitness€in€the€defendantððs€failure€to€appear€charge,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€Ïdesignated€œthe›€Honorable€John€Rollins€as€special€trial€judge€to€hear€the€misdemeanorÏcases.€Ìà àOn€October€18,€1995,€the€three€misdemeanor€charges€were€retried.€€The€juryÏreturned€a€not€guilty€verdict€on€the€charge€of€vandalism,€but€returned€guilty€verdicts€onÏthe€charges€of€resisting€œarrest›€and€simple€assault.ÌÌà@ àòòò òFactual€BackgroundÌóóó óà àThe€Tennessee€Department€of€Transportation€was€conducting€preliminaryÍsurveying€work€in€Franklin€County€for€a€state€highway€project.€€They€alleged€that€theÏdefendant,€Paul€Max€Quandt,€Jr.,€refused€to€allow€employees€and€persons€acting€on€theÏbehalf€of€the€State€of€Tennessee€to€perform€the€necessary€survey€work€across€certainÏlands€in€Franklin€County.€Ìà àThe€Department€of€Transportation€filed€a€civil€action€against€the€defendant€in€theÏCircuit€Court€of€Franklin€County€for€a€resolution€of€this€dispute.Ìà àThe€defendant€appeared€in€court,€representing€himself.€€The€matter€was€heard€byÏthe€Honorable€Thomas€W.€Graham,€Circuit€Judge,€who€entered€an€order€in€February,Ï1994,€finding€that€the€defendant,€proceeding€pro€se,€was€continually€œdisrespectful,›Ïœdisruptive,€and›€argumentative,€œwhich›€culminated€in€the€defendantððs€open€defiance€of€theÏcourtððs€œorder›€by€walking€out€of€the€hearing.€€The€court€granted€the€request€by€theÏDepartment€of€Transportation€for€an€injunction€prohibiting€the€defendant€fromÏinterfering€with€the€necessary€survey€work.€€As€a€result€of€that€hearing,€the€court€foundÏthe€defendant€to€be€in€contempt€of€court,€and€issued€an€order€to€the€Sheriff€to€forthwith€Ïattach€the€body€of€the€œdefendant›€and€œhold›€him€in€jail€for€a€prescribed€period.€€Ìà àDeputies€with€the€œsheriffððs›€œdepartment›€went€to€defendantððs€farm€in€an€effort€toÏenforce€the€œorder›€and€take€the€defendant€into€custody.€€They€observed€the€defendantÏand€the€defendantððs€son€near€a€œbuilding.€€›€It€appeared€to€one€of€the€officers€that€theÏdefendant€looked€in€the€direction€of€the€marked€patrol€car€and€ran€toward€a€building.€ÏThey€spoke€with€defendantððs€son,€who€would€not€indicate€where€the€defendant€hadÏgone,€and€wanted€to€see€ð ðthe€paper€œwork.ð𛀀œOne›€officer€went€in€the€direction€where€heÏobserved€the€defendant€œgo›€and€saw€the€defendant€hiding€in€the€fence€row€underbrush.€ÏThe€officer€told€the€defendant€to€come€out,€œand€told€him€that›€the€œsheriffððs›€œdepartment›€hadÏbeen€ordered€to€pick€him€up.€€The€defendant€came€out€of€the€fence€row,€indicating€thatÍhe€had€a€gun€and€that€he€was€not€going€to€be€arrested.€€Ìà àThe€officer€became€concerned€for€his€own€œsafety›€and€attempted€to€place€his€handsÏon€the€defendantððs€arm€or€shoulder.€€The€defendant€pulled€away,€knocking€the€officerððsÏglasses€off.€€The€glasses€broke,€and€the€officer€and€defendant€began€pushing.€€A€secondÏofficer€helped€subdue€the€defendant.Ìà àThe€officers€found€on€the€defendantððs€person€a€loaded€gun,€which€was€introducedÏas€an€exhibit€at€the€trial.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€taken€to€jail€pursuant€to€the€œcourt„ordered›€body€attachment.Ìà àThe€trial€testimony€was€not€transcribed.€€The€record€on€appeal€consists€of€aÏnarrative€statement€of€the€evidence.ÌÌœà@ àòòJurisdiction,€Double€Jeopardy,€and€the€Dirty€DiaperÌóóà àThe€defendant€complains€that€he€has€been€passed€from€court€to€court,€and€that€theÏtrial€and€re„trial€have€violated€his€constitutional€rights€to€such€an€extent€that€CircuitÏCourt€had€no€jurisdiction€to€try€his€case.€€He€complains€that€his€situation€is€similar€to€aÏyoung€baby€with€a€dirty€diaper.€€The€baby€is€passed€from€one€person€to€another€as€eachÏdiscovers€the€problem,€but€sooner€or€later€someone€has€to€change€the€dirty€diaper.€€TheÏdefendant€claims€heððs€been€passed€from€one€circuit€judge€in€a€civil€case,€to€another€in€aÏcriminal€case,€and€to€yet€another€in€a€re„trial,€and€that€no€new€evidence€was€introducedÏand€his€trial€was€erroneous.Ìòòà àóóThis€court€does€not€reweigh€or€re„evaluate€the€evidence€after€a€jury€has€found€aÏdefendant€guilty.€€We€are€required€to€afford€the€state€the€strongest€legitimate€view€of€theÏproof€contained€in€the€record€as€well€as€all€reasonble€and€legitimate€inferences€whichÏmay€be€drawn€therefrom.€€òòState€v.€Cabbageóó,€571€S.W.2d€832€(Tenn.€1978).€€A€guiltyÍverdict€rendered€by€the€jury€and€approved€by€the€trial€judge€accredits€the€testimony€ofÏthe€witnesses€for€the€state,€and€a€presumption€of€guilt€replaces€the€presumption€ofÏinnocence.€€òòState€v.€Graceóó,€493€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€1973).€€The€jury€by€its€verdictÏchanged€the€dirty€diaper.Ìà àThe€defendant€complains€that€after€the€jury€was€unable€to€reach€a€decision€in€hisÏfirst€trial,€the€court€granted€a€new€trial.€€The€defendant€complains€that€the€court€had€noÏauthority€to€grant€a€new€trial,€but€could€grant€a€re„trial.€€This€court€finds€that€theÏdefendant€was€granted€a€re„trial.€€The€defendant€further€complains€that€there€is€noÏauthority€for€a€Ìre„trial,€and€that€this€is€a€violation€of€due€process€and€double€jeopardy.€€This€court€findsÏotherwise.€€In€the€event€that€a€jury€is€not€able€to€make€a€decision,€and€is€a€ð ðhung€jury,ðð€aÏre„trial€can€be€allowed€since€a€deadlocked€jury€constitutes€a€manifest€necessity€justifyingÏa€mistrial.€€òòRichardson€v.€United€Statesóó,€468€U.S.€317,€104€S.Ct.€3081,€82€L.Ed.2d€242Ï(1984);€òòState€v.€Mounceóó,€859€S.W.2d€319€(Tenn.€1993).Ìòòà àóóRe„trial€due€to€a€mistrial€resulting€from€a€deadlocked€jury€does€not€constituteÏdouble€jeopardy.€€òòState€v.€Wittóó,€572€S.W.2d€913€(Tenn.€1978).òò›Ìóóà àThe€defendant€complains€that€Circuit€Court€did€not€have€jurisdiction€over€thisÏœproceeding.€€Tennessee›€Code€Annotated€œ40„1„108›€grants€Circuit€Court€originalÏjurisdiction€of€all€criminal€matters.€€The€defendant€was€originally€charged€with€a€felony,Ïaggravated€assault,€which€would€require€that€matter€be€filed€in€Circuit€Court.€€CircuitÏCourt€also€had€jurisdiction€of€the€three€misdemeanor€charges,€one€of€which€theÏdefendant€was€found€not€guilty,€and€the€two€for€which€he€was€found€œguilty.€€The€trialÏcourt€did€not€lose€jurisdiction€at€some€point€during€these€trials.›Ìœà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ì›à@ àòòPlea€or€ArraignmentóóÌà àThe€defendant€complains€that€he€was€tried€on€this€matter€when€he€was€notÏproperly€arraigned.€€However,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€indicate€the€defendantÏwas€not€arraigned.€€This€argument€was€not€brought€up€œin€the›€trial€œcourt›€and€has€beenÏwaived.€€œThe›€purpose€for€an€arraignment€is€to€provide€the€defendant€with€notice€of€theÏcharges€against€him.€€òòWright€v.€Stateóó,€1994€Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS€434€œ(1994).€€From€aÏreview€of€the€record,€it€is€obvious€that€the€defendant€had€notice€of€the€charges.€€ThisÏissue€is€without€merit.›ÌÌà@ àòòWritten€Orders€on€MotionsÌóóà àThe€defendant€filed€œnumerous›€motions€with€the€trial€court.€€The€record€containsÏmany€orders€ruling€on€various€motions.€€The€defendant€objects€to€no€written€order€withÏregard€to€œcertain€motions€including€a€motion€›€objecting€to€double€jeopardy,€a€motion€toÏdismiss€for€lack€of€jurisdiction,€œa€motion›€objecting€to€Judge€Rollins,€and€a€motion€toÏdismiss.€€The€œrecord€reflects€that€the€trial›€court€ruled€from€the€bench€with€regard€toÏvarious€œmotions›€and€filed€written€orders€with€regard€to€various€motions.Ìà àAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€œcourt€noted€that€the€trial€courtÏruled€with€regard€to€various€motions,€and€the€defendant€would€file€new€motions€on€theÏsame€subject.€€The€defendant€was€actually€still€objecting€to€his€original€motion€to€dismissÏin€the€first€trial€which€was€denied€by€the€original€trial€court.›€€The€defendant€has€failed€toÏshow€how€he€has€been€prejudiced€in€any€way€with€regard€to€this€issue,€and€the€issue€isÏwithout€merit.Ìòòà@ àFormer€TestimonyÌóóà àThe€defendant€complains€that€officers€who€testified€at€the€trial€perjured€œthemselves›Íby€testifying€differently€at€the€re„trial€than€they€did€at€the€original€trial.€€He€complainsÏthat€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€knew€of€this€perjured€testimony,€and€that€the€trialÏjudge€should€have€been€aware€of€it€if€he€œreviewed›€the€original€transcript.Ìà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€œdefendant›€did€cross€examine€the€officers€andÏattempted€to€impeach€œthem›€by€showing€that€œtheir›€current€testimony€was€different€fromÏformer€testimony.€€Ìà àCredibility€of€witnesses€is€a€matter€œentrusted›€to€the€jury€as€the€triers€of€fact.€€òòStateÏv.€Sheffieldóó,€676€S.W.2d€542€(Tenn.€œ1984).€€This€issue€is€without€merit.›Ìà@ àòòConsecutive€SentencesÌóóà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€œjury€trial›€œoccurred›€October€18,€1995,€and€that€aÏsentencing€hearing€was€held€on€November€16,€1995.€€However,€there€is€nothing€for€thisÏcourt€to€review€with€regard€to€the€proceedings€at€the€sentencing€hearing.€€The€recordÏmerely€reveals€that€after€listening€to€the€Stateððs€position€regarding€sentencing,€and€afterÏlistening€to€the€defendantððs€position,€the€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€six€monthsÏsupervised€probation€on€the€resisting€arrest€charge,€imposed€the€juryððs€fine€of€$500.00Ïplus€court€costs,€and€ordered€the€defendant€to€perform€one€hundred€hours€of€publicÏservice€work.€€The€court€sentenced€the€defendant€to€six€months€supervised€probation€onÏthe€assault€charge,€to€run€consecutive€to€the€resisting€arrest€probation,€and€imposed€theÏjuryððs€fine€of€$50.00€plus€court€costs.Ìà àThe€presumption€of€a€minimum€sentence€does€not€apply€to€misdemeanors.€€TheÏsentence€must€be€consistent€with€the€purposes€and€œprinciples›€of€the€Criminal€SentencingÏReform€Act.€€The€trial€œcourt€is›€provided€wide€discretion.€€òòState€v.€McKnightóó,€900€S.W.2dÏ36€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1994).Ìà àœAt€the›€hearing€on€the€motion€for€new€trial,€the€trial€court€noted€that€it€could€haveÍrequired€a€period€of€confinement€based€on€the€facts€of€the€case,€but€the€trial€court€onlyÏimposed€a€probated€sentence€and€a€total€period€of€probation€of€twelve€months€wasÏdeemed€appropriate€by€the€court.Ìà àThe€defendant€was€found€guilty€of€assault,€a€violation€of€T.C.A.€39„13„101,€whichÏis€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€defendant€probation,€and€underÏT.C.A.€40„35„303€the€defendant€can€be€placed€on€probation€for€a€maximum€time€for€theÏclass€of€conviction€offense.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€was€placed€on€probation€œ€for›€theÏmaximum€time€for€a€Class€A€misdemeanor.€Ìà àBased€on€the€record€before€this€court,€we€are€unable€to€review€the€factorsÏconsidered€by€the€trial€court€for€consecutive€sentencing€with€regard€to€the€six€months€forÏresisting€arrest,€and€the€six€months€for€assault.€€However,€both€terms€of€confinement€wereÏsuspended,€and€the€defendant€placed€on€probation,€for€the€same€effective€sentence€as€heÏcould€have€received€for€the€Class€A€misdemeanor€of€assault.€€Therefore,€if€any€error€œwas›Ïcommitted,€the€same€is€harmless.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌòòà@ àJuror€ConflictÌóóà àThe€defendant€alleges€that€the€court€erred€in€not€ordering€a€new€trial€because€aÏmember€of€the€jury€panel€was€the€husband€of€the€former€secretary€to€the€AssistantÏDistrict€Attorney.Ìà àThe€voir€dire€was€not€prepared€and€presented€in€the€record.€€However,€from€theÏrecord€it€can€be€determined€that€the€defendant€was€given€an€opportunity€during€œvoir€direÏto€question€prospective›€jurors.€€The€defendant€was€provided€by€the€clerk€with€the€namesÏof€prospective€jurors,€and€œthe€list›€provided€indicated€that€the€subject€œjurorððs›€spouseÍworked€as€a€legal€secretary.€€œAlso›€contained€in€the€œrecord€is€the€statement›€that€œthe€juror›Ïcomplained€of€is€married€to€a€œformer€legal›€secretary€who€was€employed€by€the€AssistantÏDistrict€Attorney€when€he€was€in€private€practice€some€years€before€this€trial.€€œÌà àThe›€defendant€has€not€shown€any€prejudice.€œThe€fact›€that€a€member€œof€his›€juryÏpanel€was€the€spouse€of€the€œformer€legal›€secretary€of€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€atÏsome€time€long€before€œtrial€does€not€automatically€render€the€verdict€reversible.›€€œÌà àThe›€defendant€is€entitled€to€an€impartial€jury.€€òòHyatt€v.€Stateóó,€430€S.W.2d€129Ï(Tenn.€1967).€€The€jury€must€have€an€impartial€frame€of€mind,€œbe›€influenced€by€the€legalÏand€competent€evidence€produced€during€trial,€and€base€its€verdict€upon€evidenceÏconnecting€the€defendant€with€the€commission€of€the€crime€charged.€€òòDurham€v.€Stateóó,Ï182€Tenn.€œ577,€188€S.W.2d€555€(1945).›Ìà àThe€statement€of€evidence€presented€to€this€court€reflects€that€the€defendant€madeÏno€showing€that€the€subject€juror€did€not€follow€his€oath€as€given€by€the€œcourt.€›€œThe›€trialÏcourt€polled€the€jurors€by€asking€if€they€all€agreed€with€the€verdict,€and€they€raised€theirÏhands€agreeing€with€the€verdict.€€œThe€trial€court€found€the€jury€was€fair€and€impartial.€€A›Ïtrial€courtððs€findings€of€jury€impartiality€may€be€overturned€only€for€manifest€error.€òòStateÏv.€œCazesóó,›€875€S.W.2d€œ253›€œ(Tenn.1994).€€The€defendant€has€shown€none.òò›Ìà àóóThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà@ àòòConflict€of€District€AttorneyÌóóà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€court€erred€when€it€continued€to€allow€theÏAssistant€District€Attorney€to€prosecute€the€defendant€after€being€notified€that€a€federalÏlawsuit€was€pending€against€the€Assistant€District€Attorney.€€This€issue€was€not€broughtÏup€in€the€motion€for€new€œtrial›€and€was€waived.Ìà àIn€any€event,€from€a€review€of€the€briefs,€and€the€entire€record,€there€appears€theÍallegation€that€Mr.€Blount,€the€Assistant€District€Attorney,€œhad›€been€sued€in€FederalÏCourt€on€January€30,€1995.€€However,€there€is€no€other€statement€œindicating›€why€thereÏexists€a€conflict.€€While€there€are€many€allegations€in€the€brief€œof€appellant€that›€theÏAssistant€District€Attorney€was€œprejudiced›€against€the€defendant,€œused›€perjuredÏtestimony,€and€generally€acted€unfairly,€these€allegations€are€not€supported€by€the€recordÏbefore€this€œcourt.Ìà àThe€defendant€has€failed€to€show€prosecutorial€vindictiveness.€€He€has€not€shownÏthat€the€prosecutor€acted€in€order€to€punish€him€for€standing€on€his€legal€rights;€€nor€doÏthe€facts€indicate€a€realistic€likelihood€of€vindictiveness.€€òòState€v.€Brackettóó,€869€S.W.2dÏ936€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1993).Ì›à àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àœòòValid€Warrant›Ìà àóóThe€defendant€complains€that€œwhen€he€was€arrested€the›€officers€were€on€hisÏprivate€property€which€was€posted,€and€that€the€officers€were€without€a€valid€œfourth›Ïœamendment›€warrant.Ìà àThis€œissue›€is€brought€up€for€the€first€time€on€œappeal›€and€is€waived.Ìà àHowever,€a€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€on€February€2,€1994,€€Circuit€JudgeÏThomas€œW.›€Graham€issued€a€body€attachment€for€the€defendant€arising€from€contempt€ofÏœcourt.›€€œThe›€œofficers€of€the€Franklin›€County€Sheriffððs€Department€entered€upon€the€land€inÏan€effort€to€secure€the€person€of€the€defendant€pursuant€to€that€court€order.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àòòThe€Hand€GunÌóóà àœThe›€defendant€complains€that€the€court€erred€by€retaining€a€hand€gun,€which€wasÏfound€on€the€defendant€when€he€was€arrested.€€This€issue€was€not€presented€at€theÏmotion€for€new€œtrial›€and€is€waived.Ìà àHowever,€a€review€of€the€record€reveals€that€the€officer€found€on€the€defendantððsÏperson€a€loaded€hand€œgun.€›€œThe›€weapon,€clip€and€ammunition€were€introduced€as€anÏexhibit€at€the€œtrial.€€The›€return€of€the€exhibit€is€a€matter€to€be€addressed€to€the€trial€œjudge›€Ïat€the€conclusion€of€this€suit.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.ÌÌà@ àòòReturn€of€Money€Per€OrderÌóóà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€court€erred€in€failing€to€enforce€a€prior€orderÏentered€by€the€œcourt€for€the€return€of€money.€€A€review€of€the€record€shows€an€order€wasÏfiled€ruling€on›€one€œof€defendantððs€›€motions€œthat€required›€the€return€to€the€defendant€ofÏœthirty›€œfive›€œdollars›€($35.00)€which€was€taken€œfrom€him›€upon€his€arrest.€€The€return€wasÏœordered›€August€8,€1994.€€This€is€a€matter€that€should€be€addressed€by€the€trial€judge,€ifÏthe€funds€have€not€been€returned€to€the€defendant.Ìœ›à@ àòòImproper€IndictmentÌóóà àThe€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictments€as€not€being€properlyÏcompleted.€€That€motion€was€heard€on€April€20,€1995,€and€overruled.Ìà àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€indictments€for€resisting€arrest€and€assault€wereÏnot€properly€œcompleted,›€as€they€were€not€signed€by€the€œprosecutor›€or€the€foreman€of€theÏGrand€Jury.€€From€an€inspection€of€the€indictments,€the€allegations€of€the€defendant€areÏnot€correct.€€The€indictment€from€the€July€session,€1994,€was€drawn€as€a€three€countÏindictment,€each€count€signed€by€the€District€Attorney€General,€and€all€three€countsÍreturned€as€a€true€bill,€signed€by€the€foreman€of€the€Grand€Jury,€and€filed€by€the€clerk,Ïsigned€by€the€clerk,€listing€the€witnesses€that€appeared,€and€appears€proper€in€form.€Ìà àAn€examination€of€the€indictment€returned€in€the€September€session,€1994,€again€isÏsigned€by€the€District€Attorney€General,€signed€by€the€foreman€of€the€Grand€Jury,€by€theÏclerk,€œlists›€the€witnesses€who€appeared,€and€appears€proper€in€form.Ìà àThis€issue€is€without€merit.Ìà àTherefore,€the€lower€court€is€ò òaffirmedó ó.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_____________________________›Ìà àà àà àà àà àœà àà àJOE€H.€WALKER,€IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSp.€JUDGE›ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ_________________________Ìœ›œJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE›ÌÌ_________________________Ìœ›œCURWOOD€WITT,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌœÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓÌÌÌÔ€"XÔÌÔ€"ŠÔ