ÿWPC …# VUNa %¯ 0(µw@Ý4 1 @ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% U>‰ U*Ç B)ñ DC AM]îª B˜v~µvÓ3 D3 0@9 AOyÆÈ 0DŽ D/Ò B˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ Ÿ ¡¢D£ e¤¥D¦§Ó€³»{s 3|xµ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ äÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òSeptember€30,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œIN›€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#$";+'h|Ë` Å `€€Lß›ÌAT€JACKSONÌÌMARCH€1996€SESSIONÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€€€APPELLEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€02„C„01„9506„CC„00172Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLauderdale€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àJoseph€H.€Walker,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à(Possession€of€Cocaine€withÏIntentÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€to€Sell€or€Deliver)ÌLARRY€CUNNINGHAM,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà à€APPELLANT.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌFOR€THE€APPELLANT:à àà àà àà àà àFOR€THE€APPELLEE:ÌÌC.€Michael€Robbinsà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€700à àà àà àà àà àà à500€Charlotte€AvenueÌSomerville,€TN€38068à àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0497ÌÌOF€COUNSEL:à àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€David€BridgersÌÓ  Óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌGary€F.€Antricanà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌP.O.€Box€700à àà àà àà àà àà à€€ÌSomerville,€TN€38068à àà àà àà àà àElizabeth€T.€RiceÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€Generalà à€à àÏà àà àà àà àà àà àà à302€Market€Streetà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSomerville,€TN€38068ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________________ÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌJoe€B.€Jones,€Presiding€JudgeÌÌÌÑ7€6&XdìXXdì7ÑÓ  Óò òÔ€ îÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÓ  ÓÔ€ XÔÌÌÌÓÓà àó óThe€appellant,€Larry€Cunningham,€was€convicted€of€possessing€more€than€.5Ïgrams€of€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver,€a€Class€B€felony,€upon€his€plea€ofÏguilty€to€the€offense.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€appellant€was€a€standard€offenderÏand€imposed€a€Range€I€sentence€consisting€of€a€$2,000€fine€and€confinement€for€eightÏ(8)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.€€The€trial€court€permitted€the€appellant€toÏserve€his€sentence€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Community€Corrections€Act,€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„36„101,€òòetóó.€òòseqóó.€€The€appellant€was€permitted€to€reserve€a€certifiedÏquestion€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€prosecution,€namely,€whether€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€denying€his€motion€to€dismiss€the€indictment€when€the€State€of€TennesseeÏrefused€to€honor€its€promise€to€dismiss€the€prosecution€after€he€assisted€police€inÏseveral€drug€cases.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€andÏthe€authorities€that€control€the€issue,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€Court€that€the€judgment€ofÍthe€trial€court€should€be€affirmed.Ìà àOn€July€1,€1994,€the€appellant€was€arrested€in€Lauderdale€County€by€RipleyÏpolice€officers€for€possessing€cocaine€in€excess€of€.5€grams€with€the€intent€to€sell€orÏdeliver.€€Later,€the€appellant€asked€the€officers€if€there€was€anything€that€he€could€do€toÏavoid€being€incarcerated.€€The€officers€told€the€appellant€that€if€œhe€wanted›€to€assist€inÏthe€investigation€of€drug€trafficking€in€Ripley,€he€should€call€the€officers€later.€€TheÏappellantððs€bond€was€set€at€$10,000.Ìà àCounsel€was€appointed€to€represent€the€appellant.€€There€were€several€courtÏsettings€in€the€General€Sessions€Court.€€The€co„defendant€was€ill.€€Given€theseÏcircumstances,€the€appellantððs€bond€was€reduced€to€$1,500€so€that€he€would€not€haveÏto€remain€in€jail€while€the€co„defendant€recovered€from€his€illness.€€He€was€able€toÏsecure€his€release.€€The€preliminary€hearing€was€held€on€January€27,€1995.€€TheÏLauderdale€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€appellant€on€February€6,€1995.Ìà àThe€appellant€contacted€Investigator€Gould,€a€Ripley€police€officer,€after€he€wasÏindicted.€€Investigator€Gould€told€the€appellant€that€if€he€provided€information€andÏassistance€regarding€drug€trafficking,€he,€Gould,€ð ðwould€pass€this€information€on€to€theÏAttorney€Generalððs€Office€œthat›€.€.€.€he€had€assisted€and€see€if€they€would€help€him.ðð€ÏOfficer€Gould€never€told€the€appellant€that€the€prosecution€would€be€dismissed.€ÏMoreover,€the€appellantððs€only€concern€was€avoiding€incarceration.Ìà àInvestigator€Gould€informed€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€handling€theÏappellantððs€case€that€the€appellant€was€going€to€cooperate.€€Later,€he€advised€theÏassistant€district€attorney€general€that€the€appellant€was€cooperating.€€When€theÏofficers€were€satisfied€that€the€appellant€had€successfully€completed€his€agreement€toÍassist,€Investigator€Gould€advised€the€assistant€district€attorney€general.€€The€assistantÏdistrict€attorney€general€told€Gould€that€he€ð ðwould€take€care€of€it.ðð€€Gould€relayed€thisÏmessage€to€the€appellant.€€However,€he€did€not€tell€the€appellant€what€would€occur.€ÏGould€said:€ð ðI€couldnððt€tell€him€that,€because€I€didnððt€know.ðð€€It€was€Investigator€GouldððsÏunderstanding€that€the€appellant€would€not€have€to€serve€any€sentence€that€might€beÏimposed.Ìà àOn€June€7,€1995,€Investigator€Gould€had€a€conversation€with€defense€counselÏin€a€corridor€inside€the€Lauderdale€County€Courthouse.€€Investigator€Gould€toldÏdefense€counsel€that€the€case€would€be€dismissed.€€Gould€testified€that€use€of€theÏword€ð ðdismissedðð€was€a€ð ðmistake€in€terminologyðð€on€his€part.€€No€one€from€the€DistrictÏAttorney€Generalððs€Office€used€the€word€ð ðdismissed.ððÌ€à àInvestigator€Gould€and€defense€counsel€went€to€the€office€of€the€District€AttorneyÏGeneral,€Elizabeth€T.€Rice,€shortly€after€their€conversation.€€During€theÏdi dismissed.Ìà àThe€appellant€testified€on€direct€examination€that€he€assisted€the€Ripley€PoliceÏDepartment€between€his€arrest,€July€1,€1994,€and€the€preliminary€hearing,€January€27,Í1995.€€On€cross„examination€he€testified€that€he€did€not€actually€begin€cooperatingÏwith€the€officers€until€after€the€indictment€was€returned,€February€6,€1995.€€According€toÏthe€appellant,€the€officers€wanted€to€wait€and€see€if€he€would€be€indicted.€€He€alsoÏtestified€that€he€agreed€to€assist€the€officers€to€ð ðhelp€[his]€caseðð€so€that€he€ð ðcould€keepÏfrom€going€to€jail.ðð€€When€asked€what€Investigator€Gould€had€told€him,€the€appellantÏechoed€the€testimony€of€Gould,€namely€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€ð ðwouldÏtake€care€of€it.ððÌà àAlthough€the€appellant€was€represented€by€an€attorney,€he€never€told€theÏattorney€what€he€had€agreed€to€do€or€what€he€was€promised€by€the€officers.€€HeÏtestified€that€he€ð ðdidnððt€think€it€was€necessaryðð€because€he€ð ðthought€it€[his€case]€wouldÏbe€taken€care€of.ððÌà àThere€are€two€underlying€flaws€in€this€case.€€First,€the€appellant€has€failed€toÏcomply€with€the€requirements€of€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.€1988).€ÏThere€the€appellant€failed€to€set€forth€the€certified€question€of€law€in€the€order€counselÏprepared€for€the€trial€courtððs€signature.€€The€question€is€stated€in€the€followingÏlanguage:€ð ðThe€Court€finds€and€hereby€certifies€that€the€correctness€of€its€ruling€on€theÏmotion€to€dismiss€is€a€dispositive€question€of€law€as€contemplated€by€Rule€37(b)(2)(iv),ÏTenn.€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.ðð€€òòPrestonóó€provides€that€the€precise€certifiedÏquestion€must€be€stated€in€the€judgment.€€This€Court€has€held€on€numerous€occasionsÏthat€reference€to€another€document€in€the€record€does€not€comply€with€òòPrestonóó.€€As€aÏgeneral€rule,€this€Court€dismisses€appeals€when€the€appellant€fails€to€comply€withÏòòPrestonóó.€€There€is€absolutely€no€excuse€for€not€following€òòPrestonóó.€€It€has€been€the€lawÏin€this€state€for€the€last€eight€years.€€Nevertheless,€this€Court€will€consider€whatÍpurports€to€be€the€issue.€€Ìà àSecond,€the€motion€to€dismiss€does€not€allege€that€anyone€promised€theÏappellant€that€the€prosecution€would€be€dismissed€if€he€provided€relevant€and€materialÏinformation€and€assistance€to€law€enforcement€officers.€€The€motion€simply€alleges:Ïð ðCounsel€further€learned€that€defendant€was€recruited€and€promised€òòsomeóóÏòòconsiderationóó€relative€to€the€instant€indictment€by€Investigator€Lynn€Gould€andÏInvestigator€Jeff€Fain€of€the€Ripley€Police€Department€for€services€rendered.ðð€Ï(emphasis€added).€€This€allegation€did€not€warrant€an€evidentiary€hearing€on€theÏquestion€of€whether€the€indictment€should€be€dismissed€on€the€ground€that€the€State€ofÏTennessee€breached€an€agreement€to€dismiss€the€indictment€if€the€appellant€assistedÏthe€officers.€€However,€since€the€trial€court€granted€the€appellant€an€evidentiaryÏhearing,€this€Court€will€reluctantly€decide€this€issue€on€the€merits.Ìà àThe€parties€agree€that€there€was€an€agreement€between€the€officers€and€theÏappellant€that€the€officers€would€ð ðhelpðð€the€appellant€if€he€would€help€the€officers€makeÏarrests€for€illicit€drug€trafficking.€€The€parties€also€agree€that€the€appellant€successfullyÏperformed€what€the€officers€asked€him€to€do.€€However,€the€parties€disagree€regardingÏthe€consideration€the€appellant€was€to€receive€for€fulfilling€his€part€of€the€bargain.€€TheÏappellant€contends€that€the€officers€agreed€to€have€the€prosecution€dismissed€if€heÏfulfilled€his€part€of€the€bargain.€€The€State€of€Tennessee€contends€that€the€officersÏmade€no€representations€regarding€the€disposition€of€the€prosecution€or€the€sentenceÏthat€would€be€imposed.€€The€officers€advised€the€appellant€that€if€he€cooperated,€theyÏwould€approach€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€handling€the€prosecution€andÏadvise€him€of€the€efforts€made€by€the€appellant.€€The€officers€hoped€that€the€assistantÍdistrict€attorney€general€would€recommend€a€sentence€that€would€not€require€theÏappellant€to€be€incarcerated.€€Ultimately,€the€trial€court€imposed€an€alternativeÏsentence€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Community€Corrections€Act€that€did€not€require€aÏperiod€of€incarceration.Ìà àWhen€the€State€of€Tennessee€and€an€accused€enter€into€an€agreementÏregarding€the€prosecution€of€a€particular€case€in€exchange€for€cooperation,€and€aÏdisagreement€occurs,€the€dispute€is€resolved€by€resorting€to€the€laws€governingÏcontracts.€€òòState€v.€Howingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€403,€407„08€(Tenn.€1995).€€OralÏagreements€of€this€nature€are€enforceable€contracts€in€this€jurisdiction.€€òòHowingtonóó,Ï907€S.W.2d€at€408.Ìà àWhat€constitutes€a€breach€of€the€agreement€is€governed€by€the€agreement€itself.€ÏòòHowingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€at€410.€€If€there€are€ambiguities€contained€in€the€agreement,Ïthe€ð ðambiguities€.€.€.€must€be€construed€against€the€State.ðð€€òòIdóó.Ìà àIf€the€State€of€Tennessee€seeks€to€avoid€the€terms€of€a€valid€agreement€basedÏon€a€breach€occasioned€by€the€accused,€ð ðthe€State€must€be€held€to€a€high€evidentiaryÏstandardðð€when€ð ðthe€accused€has€already€acted€in€reliance€on€the€agreement.ðð€ÏòòHowingtonóó,€907€S.W.2d€at€410.€€As€previously€stated,€the€State€of€Tennessee€does€notÏclaim€that€the€appellant€breached€the€agreement.€€The€only€issue€is€the€nature€of€theÏconsideration€the€appellant€was€to€receive€if€he€successfully€completed€his€part€of€theÏbargain.€€Ìà àThe€testimony€of€Investigator€Gould€and€the€testimony€of€the€appellantÏconflicted.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€was€required€to€determine€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses.€€The€court€observed€their€appearance,€demeanor,€and€manner.€€The€trialÍcourt€resolved€the€conflicts€in€favor€of€the€State€of€Tennessee.€€This€is€understandable.€ÏThe€appellant€contradicted€himself€as€evidenced€by€the€summary€of€the€evidence€setÏforth€above.Ìà àThis€Court€finds€that€the€officers€did€not€tell€the€appellant€the€prosecution€wouldÏbe€dismissed€if€he€cooperated.€€They€told€the€appellant€that€if€he€cooperated,€theyÏwould€attempt€to€help€him.€€The€help€would€be€advising€the€assistant€district€attorneyÏgeneral€about€his€efforts€on€behalf€of€the€Ripley€Police€Department.€The€officers€hopedÏthe€State€of€Tennessee€would€not€seek€to€incarcerate€the€appellant.€€As€InvestigatorÏGould€stated,€€he€could€not€tell€the€appellant€what€would€happen€because€he€had€noÏclue€what€the€assistant€district€attorney€general€might€do€in€the€matter.Ìà àThe€assistant€district€attorney€general€did€not€mention€the€word€ð ðdismissed.ðð€ÏInvestigator€Gould€admitted€he€told€defense€counsel€that€the€prosecution€would€beÏdismissed€òòafteróó€the€appellant€had€rendered€the€desired€cooperation.€€However,€thereÏwas€an€apparent€misunderstanding€between€Gould€and€defense€counsel,€or€GouldÏwas€confused€regarding€the€policy.€€In€any€event,€General€Rice€made€it€clear€a€fewÏminutes€later€that€she€had€not€agreed€to€a€dismissal€of€the€prosecution,€and€that€theÏprosecution€would€not€be€dismissed.€€She€explained€her€policy:€cases€could€beÏdismissed€in€the€General€Sessions€Court,€but€cases€would€not€be€dismissed€once€theÏaccused€had€been€indicted€and€the€case€was€pending€in€the€Circuit€Court.€€InÏsummary,€what€Investigator€Gould€told€defense€counsel€was€not€binding€upon€theÏprosecution.€€Moreover,€the€ð ðnew€promiseðð€for€the€past€performance€was€not€anÏenforceable€agreement.€€òòSeeóó€òòPrice€v.€Mercury€Supply€Co.,€Inc.óó,€682€S.W.2d€924,€933Ï(Tenn.€œCt.€App.),›€òòperóó.€òòappóó.€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1984).€€Also,€the€District€Attorney€General,€notÍthe€police€officer,€controls€the€disposition€of€the€prosecution;€and€defense€counsel€was,Ïor€should€have€been,€aware€that€Investigator€Gould€could€not€bind€the€State€ofÏTennessee€regarding€a€pending€prosecution.Ìà àThis€entire€dispute€could€have€been€avoided€if€the€appellant€had€advised€theÏattorney€representing€him€what€the€officers€wanted€him€to€do€and€the€considerationÏthat€he€would€receive€for€his€services.€€Counsel€could€have€met€with€the€officers€andÏthe€assistant€district€attorney€general.€€The€agreement€could€have€been€reduced€toÏwriting€so€a€future€misunderstanding€of€the€agreement€could€be€avoided.€€However,Ïthe€appellant€apparently€did€not€want€counsel€to€know€about€his€relationship€with€theÏofficers€and€what€they€had€promised€him.€€à à€€€€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€JOE€B.€JONES,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€GARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ___________________________________Ì€€€€€€€€€€WILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGE