WPC 5# UN %O 0(U}w@4 0l 0DT 0J 0T 0^6 0h 0r 0|n 0 0p 1u 0du 0@ D3 BL U>i U* B) DC AM= AQ  0D 0D D/) BX u gx v~vHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLH(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($ DDDDU;eӀzz!3|x((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 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)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X("$    """"'dxd d<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd* 'C << G*+ ,-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ..' dxdP Pd !$  +"  %%   YYY FILED%X June09,1997CecilCrowson,Jr.%AppellateCourtClerk  ] !$            TheCourtdidfurther assumethatpolicecourtjudgesrecognizetheirobligationunderArgersingerv.Hamlin,[407U.S.25,92S.Ct.2006,32L.Ed.2d530(1972)]toinformdefendantsoftheirrighttoalawyerifasentenceofconfinementistobeimposed.Northv.Russell,427U.S.at335,96S.Ct.at2712.Thetrialjudgeinthecasesubjudicefoundthatthegeneralsessionsjudgefailedtosecurefromdefendantanappropriatewaiverofcounsel. !#d#$            Somegeneralsessionscourtsalsoexercisejuvenilejurisdiction.Tenn.CodeAnn.371203.  !#d#$            ThemajorityopinioncorrectlynotesthatNorthwasappliedinStatev.Voltz,626S.W.2d291,29596(Tenn.Crim.App.1981);however,Voltzconcernedanonlawyerjudgesparticipationinapreliminaryhearing,notincarceration.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'hStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva ! . $  ݛ       \RA'\ќ  %\RA'\ћ @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE̜*R(/'A1-j|(`  `@Rߛ@ ATJACKSON@ FEBRUARY1997SESSION BARRYWELLS ,    )       ) Appellant,    ) No.02C019610CV00358      )VS.      ) LauderdaleCounty      ) RONNIERICKARD ,   ) JosephH.Walker,III,Judge       )  Appellee.    ) (HabeasCorpus) @ CONCURRINGOPINION  Iconcurintheresultreachedbymycolleaguesbutwriteseparatelytoexpressmyconcernoverthepracticeofnonlawyerjudgeshavingtheauthoritytoordertheincarcerationofadults.@ I.  ThemajoritycorrectlynotesthatNorthv.Russell,427U.S.328,96S.Ct.2709,49L.Ed.2d534(1976),foundnofederalconstitutionalimpedimenttononlawyerjudgesincarceratingpersonsundertheKentuckytwotiertrialcourtsystem.However,NorthnotedthatKentuckystwotiersystemprovidedforthefollowing:appealswhichautomaticallyvacatedtheconvictionbythenonlawyerjudge;atrialdenovoevenafterapleaofguiltyinthecourtofthenonlawyerjudge;theobligationofthenonlawyerKentuckyjudgetoadvisedefendantsoftheirunconditionalrighttoadenovotrial;therightofanappealwithinthirty(30)daysfromthenonlawyerjudgesconviction;andtherighttototallybypassthenonlawyerjudgebytenderingaguiltypleaandsecuringatrialdenovobeforealawyerjudge. 0   ׀427U.S.at334337,96S.Ct.at271213.7XXdXXd7TheseproceduralsafeguardsarenotapplicableinTennessee.@ II.  Nevertheless,theselimitingfactorsinNorthseemtohavemadelittledifferenceinotherstateswherenoconstitutionalviolationwasfound.Althoughithasbeencontendedwithoccasionalsuccessthattheuseofnonlawyerjudgesisviolativeofconstitutionaldueprocess,theweightofauthorityappearstobetothecontrary,particularlywhenthedefendanthasasubsequentrighttoatrialdenovobeforealawyerjudge.21AAm.Jur.2dCriminalLaw826(1981)(citationsomitted);seealsoStateexrel.Collinsv.Bedell,460S.E.2d636,64445(W.Va.1995)(citingseveralcasesthathaveconsideredtheissue);71A.L.R.3d562(1977).Morerecently,ithasbeenrecognizedthatitisquestionablewhetherproceedingsbeforelayjusticesareconsistentwiththedemandsofdueprocess,andtheconstitutionalityofthisprocedureisnotfullyresolved.C.Fieman,DoNonlawyerJusticesDispenseJustice?,69N.Y.St.B.J.20(Jan.1997).@ III.  UndeterminedinthisstateistheapplicabilityofArticleI,8oftheConstitutionofTennesseetotheissueofnonlawyerjudgesincarceratingadults.Stateexrel.Anglinv.Mitchell,596S.W.2d779(Tenn.1980),foundsuchaviolationrelatingtothedetentionofjuveniles.IfAnglinisaproperinterpretationofArticleI,8ofourConstitution,thenIseenoreasontolimititsholdingtojuveniles.Otherwise,anonlawyerjudgeonthefirstcaseonthedocketcouldconstitutionallyincarcerateaneighteenyearoldadultmisdemeananttonumerousconsecutivetermsof11monthsand29days.Yet,thesamenonlawyerjudgeonthenextcaseonthedocketcouldnotordertheconfinementofaseventeenyearoldjuvenileforoneday. 1   ׀Somehow,thislogicescapesme. TheTennesseecasescitedinthemajorityopinionrelatetopreliminaryhearingsandjuveniletransferhearings,nottherighttoincarcerate. 2   ׀Furthermore,thereferencestothestatutoryauthorizationfornonlawyerjudgesandthefailureofanattorneytoqualifyfortheLauderdaleCountyjudgeshipareirrelevanttotheconstitutionalissue.@ IV.  InspiteofthedifferencesintheTennesseetwotiersystemascomparedtotheKentuckysystemexaminedinNorth,thereappearstobelittleauthorityelsewhereandnoTennesseeauthoritytosuggestafederalconstitutionalviolation.Astoourstateconstitution,ourSupremeCourthasnotspokenastoitsapplicabilitytononlawyerjudgesincarceratingadultmisdemeanants.Yet,asnotedbythemajority,theAnglinholdinghasnotbeenextendedinitsseventeen(17)yearexistence. Inviewofthishistory,Iamreluctanttofindaconstitutionalviolationinspiteofmypersonalviewsthatdueprocessisoffendedbysuchapractice.      򀀀      JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE