ÿWPC @`s½`i`%å€öN@V”Êì…pYŠÉêa«ëúÿ>sÙw”î&²é¥ü\p"Y?·lµ#)ºî‚±W„w‚XÜ÷¨P#ú¶‡µdn­Š:I¯l»ÇBñÀÃïè„0‹mö„*°ÊȘh¨‹ ÇìÑÕ3žù1÷ ¸[¢cJ¡!Û¾ÍbÄ©½€ùCf~â2˱ÛüVsÏZ¦Q%¡™é-Š Ðº‰¨:«´›Ý›vñTLÌÒâóE'r!§òBf®©IÏšòZõ{«C[Ѽ`í¬Þ ÔlÊ›·à/úr·©-3¥¨SŸf²ø—DOâÖªöèkK¬ïÆ.Žð|âÏ¥¹;VB–ÿ­ík®\Ñiýc¤IÚ´¤én:1J™àä7‰a8lV~G5.?`ƒQ½M±swŒú…$Áè9 ¡˜ " öm!w>!¯œ´lô×£±—3²$ƒ4åè*ÀÏ¡Y•œ2©›| ª,qLª£é< Æôµ ð骑¶ºƒ¾s(ÞO0œj ;+ø~xåó¾<Û‰±Öa Œ ` FŸÀ×›QsJnåàÈ•uä|†M÷LQÓñB«¬¸h¸K¤Š%- '—ÊéâßâΑ –Ús;ÖMïb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ û û z Ò} zO ÒÉ ^ › w§ Æ« Æq Æ7Æý4ÃN×ÙèEê mìììììììììììììììììììììììb 0ë     Böö 0¤ D3· D-ê 0K ASbƵ 0¤{ 0D A«c˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptù| +â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5yG*d2¤ÈN§3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ- ù-(|G2³“$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÿ}ò»»Ô d(|3‡y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€K5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼K5»»»ÔÑ8€ùXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îFTK5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼K5»îîFT #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€26,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XùX»¼K5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼K5»XXù#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€òòóóÔ_ÔRICKYÔ_Ô€R.€BOWENÔ‡XùX»¼K5Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S43,062€€€€€€Phyllis€H.€Miller,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„02498„CCA„R9„CO€Ð ¥õ  ÐAugust€8,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Ricky€R.€Bowen,€is€charged€with€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€(DUI).€Ð xÈ  ÐThe€state€was€granted€an€interlocutory€appeal€from€the€trial€courtððs€order€dismissing€the€secondÐ d´ Ðð ðcountðð€of€the€indictment€by€which€the€defendant€was€subjected€to€enhanced€minimum€sentencingÐ P  Ðas€a€second€time€offender.€€The€issue€presented€is€whether€a€conviction€for€the€first€DUI€offense€mustÐ <Œ Ðprecede€the€commission€of€the€second€offense€before€a€defendant€may€be€convicted€of€DUI,€secondÐ (x Ðoffense.€€We€hold€that€the€conviction€must€only€precede€the€second€conviction,€not€the€secondÐ d Ðoffense.Ð P ÐÓ×ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed;€Case€Reversed€andÐ Ø( ÐRemandedó óÐ Ä ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼K5»àXù©#ÔÔ‡XùX.¼K5ÔJoseph€M.€Tipton,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Curwood€Witt,€Jr.óó€andÐ œì ÐòòRobert€W.€Wedemeyer,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ˆØ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð `° ÐH.€Greeley€Wells,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Robert€Montgomery,€Assistant€DistrictÐ L œ ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð 8!ˆ  ÐÌCary€C.€Taylor,€Kingsport,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Ricky€R.€Bowen.Ð #`" ÐÓdÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼K5»XXù“#ÔÔ‡XùX»¼K5ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÌà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àà @ àòòóóÔ#†¼K5»XXùM #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XùX»¼K5Ô€€€€€€€€€€€€On€May€17,€1999,€the€defendant€was€arrested€for€DUI.€€On€June€16,€1999,€the€defendant€wasÐ À&"& Ðarrested€for€the€DUI€in€the€present€case.€€On€July€27,€1999,€the€defendant€was€convicted€in€theÐ ¬'ü"' ÐGeneral€Sessions€Court€of€DUI€for€the€May€offense.€€On€September€8,€1999,€he€was€indicted€forÐ ˜(è#( ÐDUI,€second€offense,€regarding€the€June€offense.€€Upon€the€defendantððs€motion,€the€trial€courtÐ „)Ô$) Ðdismissed€the€second€offense€status€count€because€the€first€conviction€did€not€occur€ð ðbefore€he€wasÐ p*À%* Ðcharged€with€DUI€in€the€present€case.ðð€€Nothing€in€the€record€reflects€upon€what€the€trial€court€basedÐ \+¬&+ Ðits€ruling.Ð H,˜', ÐÐ 4-„(-ý Ðà  àIn€its€brief,€the€state€argues€two€points.€€First,€it€states€that€ð ðdismissal€of€count€2€was€improperÐ ° Ðbased€on€the€plain€language€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403.ðð€€We€will€ignore€the€fact€that€the€briefÐ œì Ðdoes€not€specify€where€this€plain€language€exists€in€a€statute€that€occupies€more€than€seven€pagesÐ ˆØ Ðof€our€code.€€Second,€it€states€that€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€ð ðcould€have€serious€policy€implicationsððÐ tÄ Ðand€ð ðdefies€logic€and€reason€and€[flies]€in€the€face€of€the€public„welfare€reasons€for€preventing€andÐ `° Ðpunishing€drunk€driving.ðð€€It€asserts€that€ð ðirresponsible€individuals€would€have€every€incentive€toÐ L œ Ðdrive€under€the€influence€before€being€convicted€on€the€first€DUI€because€charges€for€second€orÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuccessive€DUI€offenses€would€be€subject€to€dismissal€until€the€conviction€on€the€first€offense.ðð€Ð $ t ÐHowever,€we€will€not€presume,€and€we€seriously€doubt,€that€drunk€individuals€would€have€anÐ  ` Ðincreased€urge€to€drive€while€a€DUI€charge€is€pending€just€because€they€would€escape€the€mandatoryÐ ü L  Ðminimum€punishment€for€a€second€offense,€punishment€that€could€easily€be€equaled€or€surpassedÐ è 8  Ðby€sentences€for€two€first€offense€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ôððs.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€points€us€specifically€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(3)€which€providesÐ ¬ü  Ðas€follows:Ð ˜è  Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àFor€purposes€of€this€section,€a€person€who€is€convicted€of€a€violationÐ „Ô  Ðof€ðð€55„10„401€shall€not€be€considered€a€repeat€or€multiple€offenderÐ pÀ Ðand€subject€to€the€penalties€prescribed€in€subsection€(a),€if€ten€(10)€orÐ \¬ Ðmore€years€have€elapsed€between€such€òòconvictionóó€and€anyÐ H˜ Ðimmediately€preceding€òòconvictionóó€for€a€violation.€€If,€however,€aÐ 4„ Ðperson€has€been€òòconvictedóó€of€a€violation€of€ðð€55„10„401€within€tenÐ  p Ð(10)€years€of€the€present€òòviolationóó,€then€such€person€shall€beÐ  \ Ðconsidered€a€multiple€offender€and€is€subject€to€the€penalties€imposedÐ øH Ðupon€multiple€offenders€by€the€provisions€of€subsection€(a).€€If€aÐ ä4 Ðperson€is€considered€a€multiple€offender€under€this€subdivision€thenÐ Ð  Ðevery€òòconvictionóó€for€a€violation€of€ðð€55„10„401,€within€ten€(10)€yearsÐ ¼  Ðof€the€immediately€preceding€òòviolationóó€shall€be€considered€inÐ ¨ø Ðdetermining€the€number€of€prior€offenses,€but€in€no€event€shall€aÐ ”ä Ðòòconvictionóó€for€a€violation€occurring€more€than€twenty€(20)€years€fromÐ €Ð Ðthe€date€of€the€instant€òòconvictionóó€be€considered€for€such€purpose.Ðl¼` x` x ÐÌ(Emphasis€added).€€We€assume€this€is€the€ð ðplainðð€language€to€which€the€stateððs€brief€refers.€€TheÐ D!” Ðdefendant€comments€that€a€continued€review€of€403€ð ðdoes€not€reveal€an€absolute€standard€for€oneÐ 0"€  Ðto€determine€when€a€second€D.U.I.€offense€must€occur€in€relation€to€a€conviction.ðð€€In€this€respect,€Ð #l! Ðð ðplainðð€is€not€the€adjective€we€would€use€to€describe€subsection€403(a)(3).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àAt€first€blush€ð!ð€and€even€at€the€last€ð!ð€this€subsection€contradicts€itself.€€The€first€sentenceÐ à%0!$ Ðprovides€that€the€focal€points€for€determining€the€timing€of€multiple€DUIððs€for€punishment€purposesÐ Ì&"% Ðare€the€conviction€dates.€€This€would€mean€that€the€defendant€in€this€case€would€be€exposed€toÐ ¸'#& Ðsecond€offender€status€if€his€prior€conviction€preceded€the€date€of€a€conviction€in€this€case,€not€theÐ ¤(ô#' Ðdate€of€the€offense.€€However,€the€next€sentence€speaks€of€the€prior€conviction€ð ðwithin€ten€(10)€yearsÐ )à$( Ðof€the€present€violation.ðð€€This€would€mean€that€the€defendant€would€not€be€exposed€to€enhancedÐ |*Ì%) Ðsentencing€because€his€prior€conviction€did€not€precede€the€date€of€his€violation€of€the€law.€Ð h+¸&* ÐApparently,€the€trial€court€chose€this€meaning.€€In€the€third€sentence,€the€first€part€relates€the€timingÐ ° Ðfrom€a€prior€conviction€to€a€subsequent€violation€while€the€second€part€relates€the€timing€from€theÐ œì Ðprior€conviction€to€the€present€conviction.€This€could€mean€either€or€both€methods€of€calculation€areÐ ˆØ Ðinvolved.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àTo€say€the€least,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(3)€is€ambiguous.€€However,€this€court,€inÐ L œ Ðtwo€recent€cases,€reviewed€the€legislative€history€behind€the€present€subsection€and€concluded€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€1998€amendment€that€rewrote€the€entire€subsection€was€intended€ð ðsimply€to€increase€the€reachÐ $ t Ðof€the€statute€as€far€back€as€twenty€(20)€years.ðð€€òòState€v.€Sean€W.€Conwayóó,€No.€M2000„01263„CCA„Ð  ` ÐR3„CD,€Williamson€County,€slip€op.€at€10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€May€8,€2001);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€RussellÐ ü L  ÐSnideróó,€No.€W2000„01240„CCA„R3„CD,€Shelby€County,€slip€op.€at€6„7€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€June€26,Ð è 8  Ð2001).€€This€court€noted€that€the€previous€statute€measured€the€time€between€convictions.€€In€bothÐ Ô$  Ðcases,€this€court€concluded€that€the€appropriate€interpretation€of€subsection€403(a)(3)€is€that€theÐ À  Ðcalculation€of€time€is€required€to€be€from€conviction€to€conviction,€òòóóas€stated€in€the€first€sentence€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€subsection.€€òòConwayóó,€slip€op.€at€10;€òòSnideróó,€slip€op€at€7.€€Based€upon€these€opinions,€we€concludeÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€defendant€may€be€prosecuted€for€DUI,€second€offense,€even€though€his€first€convictionÐ „Ô  Ðoccurred€after€the€alleged€DUI€offense€in€the€present€case€occurred.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€also€conclude€that€the€fact€that€the€defendant€did€not€have€the€benefit€of€being€warnedÐ H˜ Ðpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(g)(1)€of€enhanced€punishment€for€future€DUIððs€before€heÐ 4„ Ðwas€charged€a€second€time€for€DUI€is€of€no€consequence€to€our€holding.€€The€statute€does€notÐ  p Ðprovide€that€failure€to€warn€bars€enhanced€sentencing€for€subsequent€DUIððs.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€GeorgeÐ  \ ÐS.€Merceróó,€No.€02C01„9404„CC„00066,€Hardin€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€Oct.€19,€1994).Ð øH ÐÌà  àIn€consideration€of€the€foregoing€and€the€record€as€a€whole,€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€theÐ Ð  Ðcase€is€remanded€for€further€proceedings€upon€the€charge€of€DUI,€second€offense.ò òó óÐ ¼  Ðò òó óÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð l¼ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOSEPH€M.€TIPTON,€JUDGE