ÿWPC‡$ …U:V % 0C– 0‚Ù 0J[ 0T¥ùn­ 0 4¶ 4ê U Dþ 0^B 0h   0r 0Pz e Ê 0|Ô U:P w@Š n­Ê w 0† 0 1u•UP  0dZU6¾ BôŽB)Ÿ D3ÈDCû AM> 0@‹U*ËìõÐá±¹¹ÒrU>D‚v~‘vÓ AOâ"Æ1# 0D÷# D/;$ Bj$<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiX(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó(9!2s-$¤¤Ý ƒ ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÓÓ€€€€€òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô3|xP«<þ6X9`("Courier 10cpiXôxþ6X@É“8Ç;X@( ¤T$¡¡Ó  ÓÚƒç".s-$¤¤6r Z‹,Arrus Blk BT Black2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô((3¹$©©Ý ƒ ¤T!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý 2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular G îHPIPJPKPLPMPNPOPPP«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@2T 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)(X0¸ )  8Clarendon Condensed BoldP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Courier New d „Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ)ÝÝ  ÝÔ.&ƒSPRADLI.OPN&ÔSPRADLI.OPNÔ/  Ô% Line 7 d'''''ÿÿdxd))))7Border 1dd€-+Cþÿ << Gÿÿ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Arial âÝ ƒ !ÝÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òNovember€6,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÆÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ Ô€Ô€ ôÔ€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V;€€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€contained€in€the€FifthÏAmendment€is€enforceable€against€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment.€ÏòòBenton€v.€Marylandóó,€395€U.S.€784,€89€S.Ct.€2056,€23€L.Ed.2d€707€(1969).Ô€&ÔÔ€&XÔÌ þÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ D ÒÒ ¦ Ò€Ô€&ôÔÔ€ Ô€Tenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð€10.Ô€&ÔÔ€&XÔÌ ¯Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ ÔÔ€ ôÔ€"As€a€general€rule€of€criminal€practice€and€procedure,€entrapment€occursÏwhen€law€enforcement€officials,€acting€either€directly€or€through€an€agent,€induce€orÏpersuade€an€otherwise€unwilling€person€to€commit€and€unlawful€act;€however,€whereÏa€person€is€predisposed€committed€an€offense,€the€fact€that€the€law€enforcementÏofficials€or€their€agents€merely€afford€an€opportunity€does€not€constituteÏentrapment."€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209,€220€(Tenn.€1980)Ô€&ÔÔ€&XÔÌ ÈÝ ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  Ý€€€€€òòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÔ€ ÔÓ` °ƒXh—XÓ€Ô€ ôÔ€U.S.€Const.€Amend.€VI;€€the€Compulsory€Process€Clause€contained€in€theÏSixth€€Amendment€is€enforceable€against€the€states€through€the€FourteenthÏAmendment.€òòWashington€v.€Texasóó,€388€U.S.€14€(1967)Ô€&ÔÔ€&XÔ.Ì< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÔ€.ÔÔ€.ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€.XÔÌÌò òNovember€6,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€.ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÝ  ÝÒ D ÒÒ ° ÒÒ D ÒÒ ¦ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÓ` ÜX0*ŒXÓÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€’XXXdÈdÈ7ÑÖ€(ÖÙ€€ÙßR€,/+A1-j|` Å `€€@ÿRßÞ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLEÌÌà@ àJUNE€SESSION,€1995ÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9501„CR„00019Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àBlount€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àPossession€of€Marijuana€withÌDANNY€SPRADLIN,à àà àà à)à àIntent€to€Sell€or€Deliver;€Simple€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àPossession€of€MarijuanaÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à)à àÌÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€the€Appellee:ÌÌóóKevin€W.€Shepherdà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ404€Ellis€Avenueà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌMaryville,€TN€€37804à àà àà àà àà àandÌ(at€trial€and€on€appeal)à àà àà àHunt€S.ÏBrownà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistantÏAttorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPhilip€H.€MortonÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à363€Court€Street€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMaryville,€TN€€37804„5906ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJ.€S.€DanielÌSpecial€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà@ àòòÔ€ ¼ÔOPINIONóóÌÓ€ÓÌÑ7€’XXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÔ€ XÔà àÌà àDanny€Spradlin€appeals€his€conviction€for€two€charges€ofÏPossession€With€Intent€To€Sale€Marijuana,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„17„417€and€his€conviction€for€Possession€of€Marijuana€less€than€one€halfÏounce,€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€39„17„418.€€Ìà àThe€factual€basis€of€these€charges€and€convictions€is€notÏseriously€contested.€€The€appellant€raises€four€grounds€for€appellateÏconsideration.€€First,€the€appellant€contends€that€these€charges€areÏbarred€by€the€double€jeopardy€clause€of€the€United€States€andÏTennessee€constitutions€because€the€State€engaged€in€prosecutorialÍmisconduct€by€prosecuting€the€appellant€in€violation€of€a€plea€bargainÏagreement€whereby€the€appellant€provided€informant€services.€ÏSecond,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏallow€testimony€at€the€trial€regarding€the€plea€bargain€negotiationsÏand€agreement€by€a€policeman,€thereby€depriving€the€appellant€of€vitalÏevidence€in€support€of€his€defense€of€entrapment.€€Third,€theÏappellant€contends€that€the€trial€court's€action€in€prohibiting€proof€ofÏthe€plea€agreement€denied€him€his€right€to€obtain€compulsory€processÏfor€a€witness€in€his€favor.€€Finally,€the€appellant€contends€that€theÏtrial€court€erred€in€failing€to€grant€him€immediate€probation.Ìà àAfter€carefully€reviewing€the€record€we€find€that€the€trial€courtÏproperly€applied€the€applicable€law€and€that€the€judgment€ofÏconviction€in€each€of€the€charges€should€be€affirmed,€as€well€as€theÏimposed€sentences.Ìà àMr.€Spradlin€is€a€person€of€some€notoriety€in€Blount€County.€€HeÏis€a€former€star€football€player€at€the€University€of€Tennessee€andÏcontinued€his€sports€exploits€as€a€professional€football€player€forÏseveral€years.€€On€October€1,€1992€Mr.€Spradlin€was€in€a€local€BlountÏcounty€bar€and€was€introduced€to€Ms.€Cervino€by€a€mutual€friend,ÏShannon€Criscillas.€€During€the€evening€Cervino€obtained€marijuanaÏfrom€Spradlin€through€Criscillas.€€Cervino€was€herself€in€trouble€withÏlaw€enforcement€officials€in€Knox€and€Sevier€counties€and€wasÏworking€on€this€occasion€as€an€undercover€agent€for€the€police.€€AfterÏthis€initial€encounter€Ms.€Cervino€began€to€contact€Spradlin€directlyÏseeking€to€buy€marijuana.€€She€later€was€successful€in€buyingÏmarijuana€on€three€separate€occasions,€November€20,€1992,€NovemberÍ24,€1992€and€December€2,€1992.€€On€December€18,€1992€the€appellantÏwas€arrested€on€charges€of€Distribution€Of€Marijuana€of€less€than€oneÏhalf€ounce,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„17„418€with€respect€to€the€OctoberÏ1st€sale.€€The€appellant€hired€an€attorney€and€on€January€4,€1993€heÏpled€guilty€to€this€charge€and€was€fined€$250€and€given€a€suspendedÏjail€sentence€of€30€days€with€unsupervised€probation.€€At€the€time€ofÏthis€plea€the€appellant's€attorney€was€informed€by€police€officers€thatÏthey€could€charge€the€appellant€with€three€additional€drug€relatedÏcharges.€€These€police€officials€advised€the€appellant€that€if€he€wouldÏset€up€some€undercover€illegal€steroid€purchases€that€they€would€notÏbring€these€charges€against€him.€€This€information€was€not€presentedÏas€a€part€of€the€plea€to€the€General€Sessions€Court€nor€was€theÏDistrict€Attorney€contacted€concerning€such€an€agreement.€€TheÏappellant€thereafter€acted€as€an€undercover€agent€and€made€threeÏsteroid€purchases€for€the€authorities€before€his€identity€wasÏcompromised€and€he€ceased€his€undercover€activities.€€ApparentlyÏwhen€initially€arrested€in€December€1992,€both€the€appellant'sÏautomobile€and€his€girlfriend's€automobile€were€seized.€€In€FebruaryÏboth€vehicles€were€returned€after€some€of€the€steroid€purchases€wereÏmade.€€These€vehicles€were€returned€in€consideration€for€theÏappellant's€actions€as€a€drug€informant€according€to€the€police.€€OnÏAugust€9,€1993€the€appellant€was€indicted€on€these€three€marijuanaÏtransactions€leading€ultimately€to€the€convictions€for€ourÏconsideration.Ìà àWe€first€turn€to€the€appellant's€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconductÏin€prosecuting€the€appellant€in€contravention€of€an€agreement€withÍthe€police€not€to€prosecute€him€if€he€acted€as€an€undercoverÏinformant.€€Ìà àTennessee€has€only€recently€accepted€the€view€that€immunityÏagreements€are€enforceable€when€made€by€the€prosecutor€underÏprincipals€of€contract€law€and€fundamental€fairness.€€òòState€v.ÏHowington,óó€€€òò€€€€€€€óó€S.W.2d€òò€€€€€€€€óó€€(Tenn€1995).€Previously,€òòBruno€v.ÏStateóó,€240€S.W.2d€528,€530€(Tenn.€1951)€stood€for€the€propositionÏthat€since€there€was€no€statutory€authorization€for€immunityÏagreements,€they€were€unenforceable€in€Tennessee€law.€€The€òòBrunoóóÏcase€dealt€with€an€alleged€agreement€between€a€policeman€and€theÏdefendant.€€€€òòHowingtonóó€€overrules€òòBrunoóó€in€so€far€as€it€concernsÏagreements€between€the€prosecutor€and€the€defendant€but€does€notÏalter€previous€Tennessee€law€in€respect€to€agreements€with€the€policeÏby€the€accused.€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àThe€òòHowingtonóó€court€points€out€that€plea€agreements€haveÏtraditionally€been€treated€as€contracts€and€are€enforceable€once€theÏcondition€precedent€is€met;€that€is,€once€the€trial€judge€accepts€theÏagreement.€òòSee€alsoóó€€òòState€v.€Streetóó,€768€S.W.2d€703,€711€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1988);€òòMetheny€v.€Stateóó,€589€S.W.2d€943,€945€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1979).€€The€Court€concludes€that€there€is€no€substantial€differenceÏbetween€a€plea€agreement€and€an€immunity€agreement€between€oneÏaccused€and€the€prosecutor.€Ìà àA€criminal€accused,€such€as€Mr.€Spradlin,€who€acts€as€anÏundercover€agent€for€the€police€is€not€entitled€to€enforce€an€agreementÏthat€will€dispose€of€any€pending€criminal€charges€unless€theÏagreement€is€accepted€as€a€part€of€a€plea€agreement€or€is€an€agreementÍwith€the€prosecution.€€As€in€this€case,€such€an€accused€person€acts€atÏhis€or€her€own€peril€without€such€an€agreement.€€The€record€does€notÏsupport€a€claim€of€prosecutorial€misconduct€in€pursuing€theÏprosecution€of€the€appellant.Ìà àThe€appellant€next€contends€that€this€prosecution€is€barred€byÏthe€double€jeopardy€provisions€of€the€U.S.€Constitution× ƒ0 ××  ×€and€theÏTennessee€Constitution× ƒ1 ××  ×.€€Double€jeopardy€provisions€of€the€federalÏand€state€constitutions€protect€a€defendant€against€reprosecution€forÏthe€same€offense€after€acquittal€or€conviction€and€against€multipleÏpunishments€for€the€same€offense.€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.Ï711,€717€€(1969).€€In€order€to€raise€a€double€jeopardy€objection€it€isÏfundamental€that€a€defendant€must€have€been€previously€placed€inÏjeopardy€on€the€charge.€€òòState€v.€Toddóó,€654€S.W.2d€379,381€(Tenn.Ï1983);€€òòDelay€v.€Stateóó,€563€S.W.2d€905,€906€(Tenn.Crim.App.€1977);€ÏòòSerfass€v.€United€Statesóó,€420€U.S.€377,€393,€(1975).€€The€entry€of€aÏplea€of€guilty€in€and€of€itself€is€not€a€bar€to€a€subsequent€prosecutionÏfor€the€same€or€higher€offense€without€some€judicial€action€upon€theÏplea.€òòState€v.€Sluderóó,€493€S.W.2d€467,€470€(Tenn.€1973),€òòcert.€deniedóó,Ï414€U.S.€876,€(1973).€€If€the€rule€were€otherwise,€jeopardy€wouldÏattach€at€every€plea€inquiry€and€the€court€would€be€bound€to€acceptÏevery€plea€agreement€submitted€to€it.€€òòToddóó,€654€S.W.2d€at€381;€òòStateÏv.€Mackeyóó,€553€S.W.2d€337€(Tenn.1977).€€Since€this€agreement€wasÍnever€presented€to€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€and€acted€upon,Ïjeopardy€never€attached€and€no€double€jeopardy€bar€exists.€€ThisÏassignment€is€overruled.Ìà àWe€will€consider€the€appellant's€second€and€third€assignments€ofÏerror€together€as€they€relate€to€the€same€factual€issues.€€The€appellantÏcontends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€allow€testimonyÏconcerning€the€plea€bargain€negotiations€and€agreement,€therebyÏdepriving€the€appellant€of€evidence€in€support€of€the€defense€ofÏentrapment.€€He€further€contends€that€his€right€of€compulsory€processÏfor€a€witness€in€his€favor€was€denied€by€the€court's€failure€to€allowÏBlount€Metro€Narcotics€Unit€officer€Tom€Hatcher€to€testify€as€to€theseÏplea€negotiations€and€agreement.Ìà àEntrapment€provides€one€who€commits€a€criminal€act€a€defenseÏwhen€his€illegal€conduct€is€the€result€of€undue€inducement€orÏpersuasion€by€law€enforcement€officials.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€The€focus€of€the€inquiry€isÏas€to€the€conduct€of€the€government's€agents€at€or€near€the€time€of€theÏcriminal€act€which€persuades€an€otherwise€unwilling€person€toÏcommit€an€unlawful€act.€€Assuming€that€a€plea€agreement€wasÏdiscussed€for€the€disposition€of€these€cases,€that€discussion€did€notÏoccur€until€January,€1993€when€the€appellant€entered€his€plea€toÏmisdemeanor€distribution€of€marijuana.€€These€police€inducementsÍwould€be€relevant€to€the€issue€of€entrapment€€if€the€appellant€wasÏbeing€prosecuted€for€illegal€trafficking€in€steroids€as€a€result€of€hisÏconduct€in€February€and€March€of€1993,€but€would€be€completelyÏirrelevant€to€his€criminal€conduct€in€November€and€December€ofÏ1992.Ìà àThe€trial€court's€denial€of€the€appellant's€request€to€presentÏofficer€Tom€Hatcher€as€a€witness€before€the€jury€concerning€the€pleaÏbargain€agreement€was€not€a€violation€of€the€appellant's€right€toÏobtain€Ìcompulsory€process€for€a€witness€in€his€favor.× ƒ3 ××  ×€€This€right€isÏguaranteed€under€both€the€U.€S.€Constitution€and€Article€1€Section€9Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€The€right€to€compulsory€processÏextends€only€to€competent,€material,€and€resident€witnesses€whoseÏexpected€testimony€would€be€admissible.€€òòBacon€v.€Stateóó,€385€S.W.2dÏ107,€109€(Tenn.€1964).Ìà àOfficer€Hatcher's€testimony€concerning€a€plea€bargain€agreementÏin€January,€1993€would€not€be€relevant€to€the€issue€of€entrapment€forÏcriminal€conduct€which€occurred€in€the€previous€year.€€TennesseeÏRule€of€Evidence€401€defines€relevant€evidence€as€evidence€havingÏany€tendency€to€make€the€existence€of€any€fact€that€is€of€consequenceÏto€the€determination€of€the€action€more€probable€or€less€probable€thanÏit€would€be€€without€the€evidence.€€Hatcher's€understanding€of€anyÏsuch€agreement€or€the€agreement€provides€no€basis€for€finding€thatÍan€entrapment€defense€exists€for€the€appellant.€€Assignments€of€errorÏtwo€and€three€are€therefore€overruled.Ìà àFinally€the€appellant€complains€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏfailing€to€sentence€him€to€immediate€probation.€€The€appellant€wasÏconvicted€and€sentenced€as€a€Standard€Offender,€Range€I,€for€twoÏClass€E€felonies€and€one€misdemeanor.€€He€received€a€one€(1)€yearÏsentence€on€each€of€the€felony€convictions€for€possession€ofÏmarijuana€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€pursuant€to€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð39„17„417€and€an€eleven€month€and€twenty„nine€day€sentenceÏfor€his€conviction€of€possession€of€less€than€one„half€ounce€ofÏmarijuana€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð39„17„418.€€These€sentencesÏwere€to€run€concurrently€and€were€to€be€suspended€with€the€exceptionÏof€the€first€sixty€(60)€days€which€were€to€be€served.€€The€appellant€wasÏthen€to€be€placed€on€twenty€two€(22)€months€of€supervised€probation.Ìà àWhenever€an€appeal€raises€issues€concerning€theÏappropriateness€of€the€trial€court's€sentencing€practices,€it€is€the€dutyÏof€this€court€to€conduct€a€òòde€novoóó€review€on€the€record€with€aÏpresumption€that€the€determination€made€by€the€trial€court€is€correct,ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„401(d).€€When€one€is€convicted€of€a€Class€C,ÏD,€or€E€felony€and€is€sentenced€as€either€an€especially€mitigatedÏoffender€or€standard€offender,€there€is€a€rebuttable€presumption€thatÏthe€accused€is€a€favorable€candidate€for€alternative€sentencing€unlessÏdisqualified€by€some€other€provision€of€the€law.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ40„35„102€(5)„(6).€€However,€the€appellant€has€the€burden€ofÏestablishing€his€suitability€for€probation€in€the€trial€court.€€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann€ðð40„35„303(b).Ìà àThe€record€reveals€that€the€trial€court€considered€theÏpresentence€report€and€testimony€that€was€presented.€€Thereafter,€theÏcourt€found€that€Mr.€Spradlin€should€only€be€granted€splitÏconfinement€because€of€his€continued€violation€of€the€law€by€the€useÏof€illegal€drugs,€marijuana,€following€his€guilty€plea€in€January€ofÏ1993.€€Further€the€court€found€that€Mr.€Spradlin€demonstrated€a€lackÏof€acceptance€of€responsibility€for€the€criminality€of€his€actions.€€TheÏtrial€court€described€this€attitude€as€disdain€and€untouchability€for€theÏlaws€of€the€United€States€and€those€of€Tennessee.€€This€last€findingÏwe€equate€to€depreciating€the€seriousness€of€the€offense,€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð40„35„103€(1)(B).€€Both€findings€are€supported€by€the€record.€€ÏWe€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€applied€the€law€in€sentencingÏMr.€Spradlin€to€split€confinement.Ìà àTherefore,€we€affirm€the€conviction€and€remand€this€matter€toÏthe€trial€court€to€enforce€its€judgment€and€sentence.€€€Costs€will€beÏtaxed€to€the€Appellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJ.€S.€DANIEL,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àSPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÑ7€’XXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑCONCUR:ÌÌ______________________________________ÌJERRY€SCOTT,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌ______________________________________ÌJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌ›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ¦ ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÑ7€=ãXXdæXXdÈ7ÑÔ€4ÔÔ€4ŠÔœßJ€,5;+'b|` Å `€@ÿJß›€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àœAT›€KNOXVILLEà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ô€4XÔÌÔ€4ŠÔà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€œJUNE›€1995€SESSIONÔ€ÔÌÌÓÓÔ€4ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àœ)›à àÌœà à›€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àœAppellee,à à›€à àà à)à àNo.€03C01„9501„CR„00019Ìà à€€€€€à àà àœà à›€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà àœà à)›à à€Blount€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àœà à)›€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àœà à)›à à€Honorable€D.€Kelly€Thomas,€Jr.,€Judge€Ìà àà àà àà àœà à)›ÌDANNY€SPRADLIN,à à€€€à à)à à€(Possession€of€œMarijuana›€with€œIntent›€to€œSell›€œà àà àà àà àà à)à àÏor›€œDeliver;›€œSimple›€œPossession›€of€œMarijuana)›Ìà àAppellant.à àà àœà à)›ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àò òòòDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌÌà àAlthough€I€concur€with€most€of€the€majority€opinion,€I€respectfully€disagree€withÏits€basic€conclusion€that€the€agreement€in€question€was€unenforceable€because€it€wasÏnot€approved€by€the€District€Attorneyððs€office€or€the€court.€€I€would€remand€the€case€toÏthe€trial€court€for€appropriate€findings€of€fact€in€order€to€determine€if€the€conditions€ofÏthe€agreement€were€sufficiently€completed€by€the€defendant,€if€the€agreement€wasÏmaterially€breached,€or€if€the€agreement€were€otherwise€materially€altered€by€subsequentÏevents.€€ÌÌà àThe€defendant€was€charged€in€the€Blount€County€General€Sessions€Court€with€aÏmisdemeanor€marijuana€case€and€represented€by€counsel.€€Blount€County€MetroÏNarcotics€Unit€agents€advised€the€defendantððs€attorney€that€they€had€evidence€that€theÏdefendant€was€involved€in€other€marijuana€sales€to€an€undercover€agent.€€At€that€time,Ïthere€were€no€charges€pending€for€those€sales.€€ÌÌà àThe€attorney€testified€that€the€agents€agreed€that€if€the€defendant€could€assist€inÏdeveloping€cases,€illegal€steroids€being€discussed€in€particular,€charges€would€not€beÏplaced€against€the€defendant.€€The€attorney€also€testified€that€an€agreement€was€reachedÏand€that€the€defendant€pled€guilty€to€the€misdemeanor€charge.€€Neither€the€agents€norÏthe€attorney€advised€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€on€the€misdemeanor€case€about€theÍagreement.€€At€this€point,€the€attorney€ceased€to€represent€the€defendant.ÌÌà àFour€days€later,€the€defendant€and€Agent€Scott€Helton€signed€a€ð ðStatement€ofÏConfidential€Sourceðð€that€stated€that€it€was€to€ð ðwork€off€charges.ðð€€The€defendantÏworked€with€the€unit€and€an€agent€of€the€Federal€Drug€Enforcement€Administration€inÏmaking€three€steroid€cases€before€the€defendantððs€undercover€status€was€apparentlyÏcompromised€in€another€case€in€Knox€County.€€The€record€does€not€reflect€how€theÏcompromise€occurred.ÌÌà àAt€the€motion€to€dismiss€hearing,€there€was€conflicting€testimony€as€to€theÏparticular€details€about€the€agreement,€whether€the€agreement€was€fulfilled,€and€whetherÏthe€agreement€was€altered€in€order€that€the€defendantððs€only€benefit€was€the€return€ofÏhis€car€that€had€been€seized€at€his€initial€arrest.€€However,€Agent€Helton€acknowledgedÏthat€he€did€not€tell€the€District€Attorney€about€the€cooperation€until€the€date€of€theÏdefendantððs€indictments€in€the€present€case.€€Although€the€trial€court€accredited€theÏdefendantððs€testimony€that€he€believed€he€was€doing€the€work€for€the€charges€not€to€beÏbrought,€its€findings€of€fact€are€otherwise€limited€because€specific€findings€wereÏunnecessary€once€the€trial€court€concluded€that€the€district€attorney€had€to€approve€anÏagreement€not€to€prosecute€before€it€was€enforceable.ÌÌà àIn€òòState€v.€Howingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€403,€œ408€n.10›€œ(Tenn.1995),›€our€supreme€courtÏreserved€for€another€case€the€issue€of€ð ðwhether€agreements€entered€into€by€a€policeÍœofficer›€and€a€defendant€are€enforceable.ðð€€This€appears€to€be€the€later€case,€except€weÏdeal€with€a€police€officer€and€a€person€not€yet€charged€as€a€defendant€who€made€anÏagreement€for€the€person€to€work€undercover€in€order€that€charges€not€be€brought.€ÏGiven€the€extensive€use€of€cooperating€informants€by€law€enforcement€to€further€theÏinterests€of€society€in€ferreting€out€crime,€through€undercover€operations€and€otherÏmeans,€I€do€not€believe€that€the€intervention€of€the€District€Attorney€is€necessary€inÏevery€case€to€render€a€working€agreement€enforceable€to€the€benefit€of€the€cooperatingÏindividual.€€ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€the€best€evidence€of€an€agreement€existing€between€a€policeÏofficer€and€the€defendant€is€the€ð ðStatement€of€Confidential€Sourceðð€that€was€signed€byÏthe€defendant€and€Agent€Helton.€€This€document€does€not€purport€to€require€the€DistrictÏAttorneyððs€signature€nor€did€Agent€Helton€confer€with€the€District€Attorneyððs€officeÏwhen€he€signed€it.€€Agent€Helton€even€acknowledged€that€the€document€reflected€anÏagreement.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€as€previously€noted,€there€are€questions€left€unanswered€regarding€theÏextent€of€the€agreement,€the€extent€of€the€defendantððs€compliance€with€the€materialÏconditions€of€the€agreement,€and€the€extent,€if€any,€to€which€the€agreement€wasÏmaterially€modified.€€Therefore,€I€would€not€conclude€that€the€inquiry€ended€with€theÏdetermination€that€the€District€Attorney€did€not€agree€to€the€charges€not€being€brought.€ÏI€believe€œthat›€resolution€of€the€œissue€should€await›€specific€findings€of€fact€by€the€trialÍcourt€upon€a€remand.€€ÌÓÓà àà àœà à›à àà àà àà àœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________›Ìœà àà à›à àà àà àœà àJoseph›€M.€Tipton,€œJudge›ÌœÔ€ ÔÔ€ XÔ