WPCy   \qLjaӼO߫0 ] g*[d|iث}ꠦ$O)XcZC0qcgy_ʰ#MB ~DEӪ ʅnܶ-/SRKYXF h_ڙ:F,+:H7ΣwċyXޒr<$o@wF~[x#k#Aذ.t_* F[Nt */3RS='H=Y.^EDy' /#O]lpL Sxa`4бܸBK`2%=;ig C_dpu*}D f_ąiy3oe0!G08dS|Ye N+"%7m>0_<O3u%d#fazЅ̬KTlV b0 W;,Īdl37soSqb}f: "xV|N,# hUNs % 0(U:b)w@14q$U: B 0D D3[[[[ AQ 0D 0D D/- B\ HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,6 AZ"Arial Regular- - ADBUCUDDEUFGDHYeIDJӀ&3|xU  ("   XVXXX X XV   Ad FILED XVX    May25,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. + X XVAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d(3$ !  'dxd'(!)*C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ++' dxdP Pd !  HHHH` XqXXքqTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7E:XXdd7      Jr& "<,(j 8` `@E f ` ttx$X` rߛJINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  ATKNOXVILLEFEBRUARYSESSION,1999  STATEOFTENNESSEE,    ) p C.C.A.NO.03C019803CR00099 `  `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellant,  h     ) p  `   `     h     ) p ANDERSONCOUNTY `  V. `     h     ) `   `     h     ) p  `   `     h     ) p HON.JAMESB.SCOTT,JR.,  `  HOLLYRALSTON, h     ) p JUDGE `   `     h     )  p  `  `  Appellee. h     ) p (STATEAPPEAL) `  FORTHEAPPELLEE: h      p FORTHEAPPELLANT: H  J.THOMASMARSHALL,JR.     p JOHNKNOXWALKUP 8   DistrictPublicDefender h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter 8!  KATHERINEJ.KROEGER     p ELIZABETHB.MARNEY (#  AssistantPublicDefender     p AssistantAttorneyGeneral ($ 101SouthMainStreet,Suite450   p 2ndFloor,CordellHullBuilding  % Clinton,TN37716 h      p 425FifthAvenueNorth &  `     h      p Nashville,TN37243  `     h      p JAMESN.RAMSEY )    `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral * !  `     h      p JANICEG.HICKS +"#  `     h      p AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral ,#$  `     h      p 127AndersonCountyCourthousè `     h      p Clinton,TN37716 .%& OPINIONFILED________________________REVERSEDANDREMANDEDTHOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE  9(01S   _ք OPINION ք_ `     `  Inthiscase,theStateappealsasofrightfromthetrialcourtsdismissaloftheindictmentchargingtheDefendant,HollyRalston,withtwo(2)countsofdrivingonHHarevokedHHHHlicenseandtwo(2)countsoffailuretoappearinviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsectionHH3916609.HHHHHHThetrialcourtgranteddismissaloftheindictmentbecauseitfoundthattheDefendantsrightstoaspeedytrialanddueprocesshadbeenviolatedbydelayinprosecution.AfterHHHHreviewoftherecordandthebriefsfiledonbehalfoftheparties,wereverseHHthejudgmentofthetrialcourtandHHHHremandthiscaseforfurtherproceedings. `  TheindictmentchargingDefendantwasfiledonApril1,1997.InXVXքCount#քXXVʘ#Ԁ1,theDefendantwaschargedwithdrivingonarevokedlicenseonorabout  & March24,1993.InCount2,theDefendantwaschargedwithfailuretoappearinAndersonCountyGeneralSessionsCourtonthatchargeonMarch29,1993.InCount3,DefendantwaschargedwithdrivingonarevokedlicenseonoraboutMarch26,1993,andinCount4,theDefendantwaschargedwithfailuretoappearinAndersonCountyGeneralSessionsCourtonthatchargeonApril12,1993.TherathersparserecordinthiscasereflectsthatDefendantwasinitiallyreleasedonacitationinlieuofarrestforthedrivingonrevokedlicensechargeallegedtohaveoccurredonMarch24,1993.DocumentsintherecordalsoindicatethatshewasarrestedonbothdrivingonrevokedlicensechargesonMarch26,1993.Thereisoneappearancebondintheamountof$1,500.00executedMarch26,1993.ThisbondwasapparentlyfortheoffensepertainingtotheMarch26,1993incidentandindicatedthatshewastoappearincourtonApril12,1993.DefendantwaschargedHHbyanarrestwarrantwithHHHHfailuretoappearforthescheduledcourtappearanceon 9V01 onedrivingonrevokedlicensechargeonMarch29,HH1993.ShewasalsoHHHHHHchargedHHHHwithfailuretoappearonApril12,1993ontheotherdrivingonrevokedlicensecharge.OnJanuary21,1997,allfour(4)chargeswereboundovertotheAndersonCountygrandjury. `  NotestimonywaspresentedbyeithertheStateortheDefendantatthehearingonthemotiontodismiss.EvidentiaryportionsoftherecordconsistofdocumentsshowingthatDefendantwasinjailandhadcourtappearancesinAndersonCountyGeneralSessionsCourtonnumerousoccasionsbetweenMarch,1993andApril,1997.RecordsalsoshowthatDefendantwasincarceratedintheAndersonCountyJailforsomeperiodsoftimebetweenHHtheseHHHHpertinentdates. `  ThereisnoindicationoneitherwarrantchargingfailuretoappearastowhenDefendantwasservedwiththesewarrants.However,itisnotedoneachonethatthepublicdefenderwasappointedtorepresentDefendantonOctober28,HH1996.ϜII `  Oursupremecourthasrecentlynotedthat:8 ` Liketheothercourtsthatfollowthemajorityview,thisCourthasdeterminedthatawarrantalonedoesnottriggerspeedytrialanalysis;tothecontrary,aformalgrandjuryaction,ortheactualrestraintsofanarrestarerequired. ` (#` (# Statev.Utley,956S.W.2d489,493(Tenn.1997)[citationsomitted]. 4**   7--  `  EvenifDefendantwas arrestedonthefailuretoappearchargesas earlyasOctober,1996,adelayofindictmentbythegrandjuryuntilApril1,1997isnot presumptivelyprejudicialrequiringfurtherinquiryintoviolationofarighttoaspeedytrialregardingthetwochargesoffailuretoappear.SeeStatev.Wood,924 x S.W.2d342,346(Tenn.1996). `  TheStatearguesthatonlyone(1)ofthedrivingonrevokedlicensechargesissubjecttospeedytrialviolationanalysis,thatbeingthechargeforwhichDefendantmadeabondintheamountof$1,500.00afterarrest.However,bothwarrantschargingdrivingonarevokedlicensereflectonthefaceofthedocumentthatDefendantwas arrestedforthechargeofdrivingonrevokedlicense.Absentsomeproofintherecord,i.e.testimony,tocontradictwhatisonthefaceofthewarrant,wewillacceptthatDefendantwasarrestedforbothchargesofdrivingonarevokedlicenseinMarch,1993.Therefore,thedelayinprosecutionofthedrivingonrevokedlicensecasesissubjecttoanalysisofapossibleviolationofDefendantsrightstoaspeedytrial. `  InWood,HHoursupremecourtrecognizedthattheUnitedStatesSupreme +"" CourtinBarkerv.Wingo,407U.S.514,92S.Ct.2182,33L.Ed.2d101(1972), -$$ adoptedabalancingtesttodeterminewhetheradefendantsSixthAmendmentrightstoaspeedytrialhavebeendenied.TheBarkeranalysiswasadoptedbythe 2(( TennesseeSupremeCourtinStatev.Bishop,493S.W.2d81,8385(Tenn.1973). 4** SeeWood,924S.W.2dat346. 6,,   :00  `  Thefour(4)factorswhichmustbebalancedareasfollows:8 ` (1)0 ` (#` (#Thelengthofthedelay.h  (# (# 8 ` (2)0 ` (#` (#Thereasonforthedelay.l  (# (# 8 ` (3)0 ` (#` (#Thedefendantsassertionof[her]righttoaspeedytrial.p  (# (#  ` (4) Theprejudiceresultingtothedefendantfromthedelay. t Id.   % `  Thedelayoffour(4)yearsfromarrestinMarch,1993untilindictmentinApril,1997onthetwo(2)chargesofdrivingonrevokedlicenserequiresanalysisoftheremainingthree(3)factors.ThelengthofthedelayweighsfavorablyfortheDefendant. `  OHHHHursupremecourtnotedthatthesecondfactor,reasonforthedelay, T fallsgenerallyintooneoffourcategories:8 ` (1)0 ` (#` (#Intentionaldelaytogainatacticaladvantageoverthedefenseor "d delaydesignedtoharassthedefendant.  (# (# 8 ` (2) Bureaucraticindifferenceornegligence.$l` (#` (# 8 ` (3)0 ` (#` (#Delaynecessarytothefairandeffectiveprosecutionofthecase.%p (# (# 8 ` (4)0 ` (#` (#Delaycaused,oracquiescedin,bythedefense.&t (# (# Wood,924S.W.2dat34647. )  ( `  ThereisnothinginthisrecordtoindicatethatthedelaywasintentionaltogainatacticaladvantageovertheDefendantortoharasstheDefendant.Likewise,thereisabsolutelynothingintherecordtoindicatethatthedelaywasnecessaryforthefairandeffectiveprosecutionofthecase.However,itcanbeinferredfromthisrecordthataportionofthedelaywasdirectlyduetobureaucraticindifferenceornegligence.Likewise,itcanbeinferredthatthedelaywascaused,oracquiescedin,bytheDefendant.  :00 Ї `  Defendantwasgivenatrialdateoneachchargeofdrivingonarevokedlicense.Thetrialdateoneachcasewaswithinone(1)monthofherarrestoneachcharge.Fromtherecord,itisapparentthattheDefendantfailedtoappearincourtforeithercharge.Wefindfromthisparticularrecord,thatthe bureaucraticindifferenceornegligencecauseforthedelayisequaledby,orsurpassedby,Defendantsacquiescenceand/oractioninfailingtoappearwhichcontributedtothedelay. `  Fromtherecord,itappearsthattheearliestDefendantwouldhaveassertedherrighttoaspeedytrialonthechargesofdrivingonarevokedlicensewasinOctober,1996.TheDefendantarguesthatshemadeappearancesintheGeneralSessionsCourtonunrelatedchargesonnumerousoccasionsbetween1993and1997,andthattheStateshouldhavepursuedthedrivingonrevokedlicensechargesduringanyoneoftheseoccasions.However,Defendantsanalysisisatwoedgedsword.Onanyoftheseoccasions,shecouldhavealsoassertedherrighttoaspeedytrialonthechargesofdrivingonarevokedlicense.WhileDefendantdoesnotautomaticallywaivearighttoaspeedytrialbyfailingtoassertit,HH [f]ailuretoasserttherightimpliesadefendantdoesnotactivelyseekaswifttrial. +"" [E]videncethatthedefendantdidnotwantaspeedytrialwouldneverwarrantthefindingofaconstitutionalviolationexceptinextraordinarycircumstances.(QuotingfromStatev.Baker,614S.W.2d352,355(Tenn.1981)).(Wood,924S.W.2dat 2(( 347). `  OursupremecourtinWood,viewedthefourthfactor,whetherthe 8.. defendanthassufferedprejudicebydelay,asthemostimportantfactor.Id.at348  :00 (citationsomitted).Defendantarguesthatshewasprejudicedbecauseshe,asallegedinthemotiontodismiss,hadlostthe possibilityofconcurrentsentences.InWood,HHdefendantwaschargedwithmurderinapresentmentreturnedbythe p  WilliamsonCountygrandjuryinSeptember,1979.Atthetimeofthisindictment,defendantwasincustodyintheStateofAlabamaawaitingtrialonanunrelatedmurdercharge.HewasconvictedinAlabama.InMarch,1984,adetainerwaslodgedagainstdefendantanddefendantbecameawareofthisdetainershortlythereafter.However,defendantdidnothingregardingthedetaineragainsthimuntilsix(6)yearslaterin1990.TheopinioninWood,924S.W.2dat348,reflectsthat @ defendantdidnotseeklegalassistanceordemandaspeedytrialontheTennesseechargeuntilhefoundoutthathispendingparoleinAlabamawouldbeconditioneduponhisreturntoTennesseefortrialonthemurderchargeinthisstate.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtinWoodnotedasfollows: !` 8 ` Hence,weinferthatthedefendantdidnotnecessarilywantaspeedytrialinTennessee.Afterall,hadtheTennesseechargeultimatelydiedofneglect,therewouldhavebeennoimpedimenttoanunconditionalparoleinAlabama.Assertinghisrighttotrialwouldhavepreventedthat,anditwouldhaveexposedthedefendanttotheriskofaTennesseeconviction. ` (#` (# Wood,924S.W.2dat348. +"" K9 `  ThesupremecourtinWoodfoundthatthedefendant /&& 8 ` FdFGDGeliberatelychosetoforgoHHHHaspeedytrialrequest,hopinginsteadthattheTennesseechargeswoulddieofneglect.Heacquiescedinthedelayfromthetimehelearnedofthedetainerin1984until1990,afterAlabamahadofferedconditionalparole.Anypresumptionofprejudiceisweakenedtosomedegreebythedefendantsacquiescenceinthedelay.Therefore,theprejudicefactorweighsinfavoroftheHHState. ` (#` (# HHHHHHWood,HHHH924S.W.2dHHatHHHHHH34849.HHHHHH  :00 ;HH `  Fromthisrecord,itappearsthatDefendantHollyRalstonacquiescedinthedelay,andwecaninferthatshe,inessence,likethedefendantinWood, h  hopedthatthechargeswould diebyneglect.Sincethereisnoproofintherecordofactualprejudice,thisfactorweighsinfavoroftheState. `  Analyzingthefour(4)factorsofBarkerv.Wingo,HHGGweHHHHfindthatthelength (  ofHHtheHHHHdelayweighsHHinHHHHfavoroftheHHDefendant,HHHHandHHofHHHHtheotherthree(3)factors,HH(a)theHHreasonforthedelayisneutral,HH(b)theHHDefendantsassertionofherrighttoaspeedytrialweighsinfavoroftheState,andHH(c)theHHHHHHlast,HHHHandmostimportantfactor,prejudiceresultingtotheDefendantfromthedelay,weighsinfavoroftheState.Therefore,weholdthatDefendantsconstitutionalrightstoaspeedytrialwerenotdeniedinthiscaseregardingthechargesfordrivingonarevokedlicense. `  WhilewehaveheldthattheDefendantsconstitutionalrightstoaspeedytrialwerenotimplicatedonthechargesoffailuretoappear,wemuststillexaminewhetherornottheDefendantwasdeniedherrighttodueprocessHHbecauseoftheHHHHdelayinprosecutingthesecharges.Weholdthatherrightstodueprocesswerenotviolated.Inaddition,weconcludethatDefendantsrightstodueprocesswerenotviolatedbythedelayinprosecutionofthedrivingonrevokedlicensecharges. `  InHHUtley,HHHHHHGGourHHHHsupremecourtquotedfromitspreviousdecisioninState 4** v.Gray,917S.W.2d668(Tenn.1996),andnotedthatforadefendanttoshowa 6,, violationoftherighttodueprocessresultingfromadelayinprosecution,thedefendantmustprove:  :00 8 ` (1)0 ` (#` (#Therewasadelay.`  (# (# GG8 ` (2)0 ` (#` (#Theaccusedsustainedactualprejudiceasadirectand d  proximateresultofthedelay.  (# (# GG8 ` (3)0 ` (#` (#TheStatecausedthedelayinordertogaintacticaladvantage l  overortoharasstheaccused.  (# (# HHUtley,HHHH956S.W.2dHHatHHHH495HH(citingGray,917S.W.2dat671>)>.?Tenn.1997).?B x BJAA@ `  ` @Thesupremecourtalsorecognizedthatwhiletheneedtoshowprejudiceinrelationtoaspeedytrialclaimmayhavebeenrelaxed,theneedtoshowactualprejudiceinrelationtoadueprocessclaimisstillrequired.Id. 4   `  OurreviewoftherecordreflectsthatthereisnoproofthattheStatecausedadelayinordertogaintacticaladvantageoverortoharasstheaccusedandthereisnoproofofactualprejudicesustainedbytheDefendantasa directandproximateresultofthedelayinprosecutingthecases.Therefore,wefindthattheDefendantsrightstodueprocessasguaranteedbytheUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutionshavenotbeenviolated. `  AswehaveconcludedthatneithertheDefendantsrightstoaspeedytrialorherrightstodueprocesshavebeenviolated,weconcludethattheindictmentshouldnothavebeendismissedpursuanttoRule48,TennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.DCCDE 9// E@*DConclusion `   `  Forthereasonsstatedherein,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreversed,theindictmentisreinstated,andthismatterisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings. `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   THOMAST.WOODALL,JudgeCONCUR:___________________________________JERRYL.SMITH,Judge    \ ___________________________________L.T.LAFFERTY,SeniorJudge