ÿWPC4X +‰UWTæ»ÎçLI;…€c{©y DÆýÉ»×圿‚W:Ü롪F†±×³ö´ŠŠf\q-²7ò›×>”>!H•ºRvœ‹LÍ…ï®tït.oäFŽ–égqA:¿Ž1çÓ@lÁÞžCñgTˆ¦Eñ$^µ5»^­¬1u¨Qb^ä¿]žúPKÛÎ>ò?×ø`.PlòĉÎVa§±ÎCò/ì5zJ¬ƒW¼ÒˆØ†­Neel-<0bâ ºkÇúÊ1ñ[G•sAâTÇUn7¹V kÆ”'&äÀŒ?c›õ´]'ûœ5CdÓa²áo ‰¤­y³ºëínÈ W:<Ì¢Ó÷^9¬ï^àTÝ ci=Ì>­WÈî숕ýg)Î:Ö¸p½b§Ë£Ú˯^À=ù#4ÓÏè_Óvæ‘wG0”m¤›Ë}ŠZžÀbs aBz«Ñ‘o…«˜Ì5Á3SÒGü˜¢à±8’ìFñû¬^<†50c|ÊÂ0%>ãÑ=ŒTÅräE!l!Ž-¨O+…&²4šÜ0æ¼.«Üq‡l0êLeåÁÜ{)±Ä¢‰ï±ë•o›5Še3:„Àón# ^­u\2a—#ÁB % 0D 0ˆM UNÕ 0ô# 72 zIÒà 1‡• 0Ö 06ò 0:(ÆbÆ(ÆîÆ´ 0^zNØ 0<Ú 1‡E 1uŸ 72 0cFU6©© 72ß 1‡ 72˜ 0ñÊ 0î» 0w©N  0ë" 0è  0åõ 0âÚ 1‡¼ 0ßC 0Ü" 0âþ 0ßà 0Ü¿! 0Ù›"bt# 0Ó|# 0ÐO$ 0Í% 0Êì% 0á¶& 0Þ—' 0Ûu( 0ØP) 0Õ(* 0Òý* 0ÏÏ+ 0Ìž, 0Éj- 003. 0<c. 0¾Ÿ. 0>]/ 0v›/ 0`0 0`q0 0`Ñ0 0`11 0`‘1 08ñ1 0Ò)2 02û2 0ü-3 0:)4 0Yc4 0_¼4 0 5 0j%6 0„7 B*9 D/=9 0ël9 0„W: D/Û; 0Î < BØ< 0õ< 0¤ý= D5¡> D-Ö> 0K? 0NN? ASœ?Æï? 0¤µ@ 0DYA A«AU>HB 72†B 1‡¸B 72?C 1‡qC 72øC 1‡*D 72±DU*ãDãD 1‡ E 72”E 1‡ÆE 72MFF 1‡•F 72GÑNGCLcbMÅNÅNÅNÅNÅNÅNíÇO´RÛÓSÓSÓS2®U®U®U®U®U®U®U®U®U®U®U®U®U®U®UàW^ èWwôW4øW XX mX˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular2J+M ÿÿ0_level1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý ÓA. ˜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.wpt0š}CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.1.A.A.A.A.A.A.2>M ÿÿ0_levsl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó4ÿÿ2VariableòòóóLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô(нCEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à<þ6X9`(‹Courier New A.(ª½CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.2G+M ÿÿ0_level2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2D+M ÿÿ0_level3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à2A+M ÿÿ0_level4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>+M ÿÿ0_level5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;+M ÿÿ0_level6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28+M ÿÿ0_level7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.25+M ÿÿ0_level8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22+M ÿÿ0_level9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levsl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levsl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levsl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levsl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó- ù-2;M ÿÿ0_levsl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levsl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levsl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levsl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2JM ÿÿ0_levnl1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ X ÓÓ2( ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 2ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2GM ÿÿ0_levnl2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2DM ÿÿ0_levnl3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2AM ÿÿ0_levnl4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2>M ÿÿ0_levnl5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó2;M ÿÿ0_levnl6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó28M ÿÿ0_levnl7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó25M ÿÿ0_levnl8Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó22M ÿÿ0_levnl9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡XXXÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€Q(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡j%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dP)1dxd(|G2{·$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€X»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû¥ò»»Ô<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€T(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡j%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€Z(€X7ÓP)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ d8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡bô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ(|3lj$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€X»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3lj$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€X»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKô\  `‹&Times New Roman'1.(uhCEKQW]cioAutoList51.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.d1.(…hCEKQW]cioAutoList61.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.f1.0•¨CEKQW]cioAutoList71.A.1.1.1.1.1.1.h1.%ä2¼A`‹Arial(ú½CEKQW]cioAutoList8A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.lA.(µhCEKQW]cioAutoList91.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.n1. Ñ ° Ñ(Õ£EGMSY_ekqAutoList101.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.q1. ÇÝ ƒR{·$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€oral€argument,€defense€counselððs€factual€recitation€was€that€the€defendant€was€arrested€in€Sevier€CountyÐ ° Ðand€taken€back€to€his€Knox€County€home,€where€a€search€warrant€was€executed.€€The€arrest€warrant€is€not€in€the€appellateÐ tÄ Ðrecord.€€The€only€pertinent€information€in€the€appellate€record€is€contained€in€a€TBI€file€memorandum€and€a€searchÐ 8ˆ Ðwarrant€affidavit.€€The€memorandum€says€the€defendant€was€ð ðdetained€.€.€.€€for€further€investigationðð€after€an€undercoverÐ üL Ðagent€ð ðhad€a€general€conversation€about€cocaineðð€with€the€defendant€at€the€transaction€location€in€Sevier€County.€€TheÐ À Ðdefendant€had€in€his€possession€approximately€one€ounce€of€cocaine;€however,€there€is€conflicting€information€in€theÐ „Ô Ðrecord€whether€this€cocaine€was€in€the€floorboard€of€his€vehicle€or€had€already€been€delivered€to€the€undercover€agent.€Ð H ˜ ÐThe€defendant€ð ðrefused€cooperationðð€for€a€search€of€his€Knox€County€residence,€and€a€search€warrant€was€obtained. 9Ý ƒR{·$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThere€were€other€presentments€returned€in€Sevier€County,€but€they€have€not€been€included€in€the€appellateÐ ° Ðrecord€and€appear€to€have€no€bearing€on€the€issues€before€us. YÝ ƒR{·$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Knox€County€presentment€indicates€that€the€case€was€considered€by€the€grand€jury€on€February€11,€1999.€Ð ° ÐNo€explanation€appears€of€record€why€the€presentment€was€not€filed€until€February€18,€1999./cgi-bin/compose?curmbox=F000000001&a=76faefecaa5ae6b4abfeba11632f9158&mailto=1&to=jdrockett%40msn%2ecom&msg=MSG998497951.42&sta ãÝ ƒR{·$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€the€double€jeopardy€argument€section€of€the€defendantððs€brief,€he€claims€that€even€if€double€jeopardyÐ ° Ðprinciples€do€not€bar€dual€prosecution,€due€process€and€ð ðlaw€of€the€landðð€constitutional€provisions€do€because€the€SevierÐ tÄ ÐCounty€offense€is€ð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€the€Knox€County€offense.€€òòCompare€Dentonóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€378€òòwith€StateÐ 8ˆ Ðv.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.€1991).€€We€believe,€however,€that€the€òòóódouble€jeopardy€analysis€is€the€moreÐ üL Ðappropriate€framework€for€analyzing€this€issue. Ý ƒR{·$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€general€terms,€Rule€14€provides€for€severance€of€offenses€for€reasons€of€fairness.€€òòSee€generallyóó€Tenn.€R.Ð ° ÐCrim.€P.€14(b). ÑÝ ƒR{·$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAs€in€section€II€above,€we€will€discuss€this€issue€despite€the€dispositive€nature€of€our€holding€in€section€I€dueÐ ° Ðto€the€possibility€of€further€review.€€òòSee€Jacobs€v.€Stateóó,€224€Tenn.€106,€107,€450€S.W.2d€581,€581€(1970)òò;€State€v.Ð tÄ ÐPendergrassóó,€13€S.W.3d€389,€395€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999). (Ý ƒR{·$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôû¥ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔApparently,€Mr.€Sutton€was€living€in€the€defendantððs€home€at€the€time€of€the€offenses.€€At€his€Sevier€CountyÐ ° Ðsentencing,€the€defendant€claimed€that€he€was€disabled€but€not€yet€eligible€for€Social€Security€benefits.€€The€defendantÐ tÄ Ðmaintains€that€at€Suttonððs€urging,€he€began€selling€drugs€to€make€ends€meet€until€he€became€eligible€for€Social€SecurityÐ 8ˆ Ðbenefits. ¯ <+â yG*˜C µx®£3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€X»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼X»»»ÔÑ8€AXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î[<XÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼X»îî[< #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€26,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XAX»¼XÔÌò òÔ#†¼X»XXA#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€ROBERT€L.€EASTERLYòòóóÔ‡XAX»¼XÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€67425€€€€€€Mary€Beth€Ô_ÔLeibowitzÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„02625„CCA„R9„COÐ ¥õ  ÐSeptember€28,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓIn€this€interlocutory€appeal,€Robert€L.€Easterly€challenges€the€Knox€County€Criminal€Courtððs€orderÐ xÈ  Ðdenying€his€motion€to€dismiss€a€presentment€against€him.€€Easterly€claims€that€the€state€is€barredÐ d´ Ðfrom€prosecuting€him€for€the€offense€charged€in€the€presentment€because€(1)€the€case€was€not€joinedÐ P  Ðwith€a€prior€prosecution€of€him€in€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€County,€(2)€the€criminal€conduct€charged€in€theÐ <Œ Ðpresentment€is€the€same€offense€for€double€jeopardy€purposes€as€the€case€in€which€he€was€convictedÐ (x Ðin€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€County,€and€(3)€the€delay€in€commencement€of€the€Knox€County€prosecution€violates€hisÐ d Ðspeedy€trial€and€due€process€rights.€€Because€we€agree€with€the€defendant€that€both€the€mandatoryÐ P Ðjoinder€rule€and€double€jeopardy€principles€bar€dual€prosecutions,€we€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€orderÐ ì< Ðand€dismiss€the€presentment.Ô#†¼X»XXA#ÔÔ‡XAX»¼XÔÐ Ø( ÐÓÙÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼X»àXA #ÔÔ‡XAX.¼XÔJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòRobert€W.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€joined€and€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ô,€J.,€óódid€not€participate.Ð tÄ ÐÌWade€V.€Davies,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Robert€L.€Easterly.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Mark€A.€Ô_ÔFulksÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð $"t! ÐRandall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Leon€Franks,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,Ð #`" Ðfor€the€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÓ¹ ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼X»XXAè #ÔÔ‡XAX»¼XÔÐ Ô%$!% ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼X»XXAm #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XAX»¼XÔà  àà ` àÑ€pOaÑOn€March€13,€1998,€an€undercover€agent€of€the€Tennessee€Bureau€of€InvestigationÐ ¬'ü"' Ðcalled€the€defendant,€Robert€L.€Easterly,€at€his€Knox€County€home€and€requested€that€he€bring€aÐ ˜(è#( Ðquantity€of€cocaine€to€Ô_ÔSevierÔ_Ô€County€for€the€agentððs€purchase.€€The€defendant€agreed€and€did€so.€€TheÐ „)Ô$) Ðagent€met€with€the€defendant€inside€the€defendantððs€car,€and€the€two€discussed€cocaine.€€TheÐ p*À%* Ðdefendant€was€then€detained.€€He€refused€to€allow€law€enforcement€officials€to€search€his€KnoxÐ \+¬&+ ÐCounty€residence,€so€they€obtained€a€search€warrant.€€Upon€its€execution,€officials€discovered€a€largeÐ H,˜', Ðquantity€of€cocaine€inside€the€house.€€The€defendant€was€arrested,€although€the€record€does€notÐ 4-„(-ý ÐÔ_Ôreflect€whether€his€arrest€was€pursuant€to€the€Sevier€County€transaction,€the€Knox€CountyÐ ° Ðpossession,€or€both.׃s×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€ò òó óÐ œì ÐÌà  àà ` àThereafter,€the€defendant€was€charged€in€Sevier€County€on€June€1,€1998€byÐ tÄ Ðpresentment.׃t°×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Counsel€was€appointed.€€On€February€16,€1999,€the€defendant€pleaded€guilty€toÐ `° Ðpossession€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver€one„half€gram€or€more€of€cocaine€for€the€March€13,€1998€Ð L œ Ðincident€in€Sevier€County.€€Two€days€later,€a€presentment€was€returned€in€Knox€County€charging€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðdefendant€with€possession€with€intent€to€sell€more€than€300€grams€of€cocaine€and€possession€withÐ $ t Ðintent€to€deliver€more€than€300€grams€of€cocaine.׃u ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€These€charges€relate€to€the€cocaine€discovered€inÐ  ` Ðthe€defendantððs€home€on€March€13,€1998.€€The€defendant€was€sentenced€in€Sevier€County€on€MarchÐ ü L  Ð29,€1999€to€an€eight„year€sentence.€€The€court€imposed€the€manner€of€service€as€ten€months€in€theÐ è 8  Ðlocal€jail€and€the€remainder€in€the€Community€Corrections€program.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àSometime€after€sentencing,€defense€counsel€learned€that€the€Tennessee€Bureau€ofÐ ¬ü  ÐInvestigation€had€contacted€the€defendant€about€the€Knox€County€presentment.€€Defense€counselÐ ˜è  Ðspoke€with€a€Knox€County€assistant€district€attorney€on€April€6,€1999,€and€the€assistant€confirmedÐ „Ô  Ðthat€the€Knox€County€Grand€Jury€had€returned€a€presentment€against€the€defendant.€€The€assistantÐ pÀ Ðdistrict€attorney€was€unable€to€provide€counsel€with€a€copy€of€the€sealed€presentment,€however.€Ð \¬ ÐDefense€counsel€told€the€assistant€district€attorney€that€the€defendant€would€turn€himself€in€early€toÐ H˜ Ðbegin€serving€his€Sevier€County€conviction€and€requested€that€the€defendant€be€served€at€the€SevierÐ 4„ ÐCounty€Jail€with€the€capias€for€the€Knox€County€presentment.€€Defense€counsel€claims€that€theÐ  p Ðassistant€district€attorney€agreed€to€this€arrangement.€€The€assistant€district€attorney€testified€at€aÐ  \ ÐKnox€County€motion€hearing€that€he€agreed€to€ð ðtryðð€to€have€the€capias€served€on€the€defendant€inÐ øH Ðthe€Sevier€County€Jail.€€Nevertheless,€the€capias€remained€unserved,€and€defense€counsel€sent€a€letterÐ ä4 Ðto€the€assistant€district€attorney€on€June€17,€1999€advising€him€of€that€fact.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€any€event,€after€the€defendant€completed€serving€his€Sevier€County€confinement,Ð ¨ø Ðhe€was€transferred€to€Knox€County€detention.€€He€was€arraigned€on€March€3,€2000,€and€theÐ ”ä Ðpresentment€was€finally€served.€€The€same€attorney€who€had€represented€the€defendant€in€his€SevierÐ €Ð ÐCounty€case€was€appointed€to€represent€him€in€Knox€County.€€Ð l¼ Їà  àà ` àDefense€counsel€moved€to€dismiss€the€Knox€County€presentment€on€the€basis€ofÐ ° Ðviolation€of€the€mandatory€joinder€rule€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€8(a),€violation€ofÐ œì Ðdouble€jeopardy€principles,€and€unreasonable€delay€in€the€prosecution€violating€speedy€trial€and€dueÐ ˆØ Ðprocess€principles.€€Following€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion,€finding€that€the€delay€inÐ tÄ Ðð ðthe€process€of€servingðð€the€Knox€County€presentment€was€not€ð ðunreasonable€or€intentional€.€.€.€norÐ `° Ð.€.€.€for€the€purpose€of€denying€Mr.€Easterly€his€rights.ðð€€The€court€also€ruled€that€the€Sevier€andÐ L œ ÐKnox€County€offenses€ð ðwere€brought€in€separate€counties,€hence€they€could€not€have€been€broughtÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€the€same€jurisdiction€to€the€same€court.ðð€€The€court€reasoned€that,€although€it€was€ð ða€òòveryòòóóóó€closeÐ $ t Ðcall,ðð€the€fact€that€the€alleged€offenses€took€place€in€two€different€counties€defeated€mandatoryÐ  ` Ðjoinder€and€double€jeopardy€concerns.€€(Emphasis€in€original.)Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àà ` àOn€the€defendantððs€application,€the€trial€court€granted€permission€to€appeal€its€orderÐ Ô$  Ðpursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Appellate€Procedure€9.€€This€court€accepted€the€application,€and€theÐ À  Ðcase€is€now€before€us€for€disposition.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€address€the€defendantððs€issues€in€the€following€order.€€€First,€do€double€jeopardyÐ „Ô  Ðprinciples€bar€the€Knox€County€prosecution?€€Second,€does€Rule€8(a)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÐ pÀ ÐCriminal€Procedure€require€that€the€Knox€County€and€Sevier€County€offenses€be€joined€in€a€singleÐ \¬ Ðprosecution?€€Third,€were€the€defendantððs€speedy€trial€and€due€process€rights€violated€byÐ H˜ Ðunreasonable€delay?€€As€will€be€explained€below,€we€answer€the€first€two€questions€affirmativelyÐ 4„ Ðand,€therefore,€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€order€and€dismiss€the€Knox€County€presentment.Ð  p ÐÌà@——!ìàò òI€„€Double€JeopardyˆÐ øH ÐÌó óà  àà ` àConstitutional€provisions€protect€a€person€from€more€than€once€being€placed€inÐ Ð  Ðjeopardy€of€conviction€of€a€crime.€€U.S.€Const.€amends€V,€XIV;€€Tenn.€Const.€art€I,€ðð€10.€€€ForÐ ¼  Ðoffenses€to€support€multiple€convictions,€they€must€be€"wholly€separate€and€distinct."€òò€See,€e.g.,€StateÐ ¨ø Ðv.€Goinsóó,€705€S.W.2d€648,€650€(Tenn.€1986).€€The€defendant€in€this€case€claims€that€his€possessoryÐ ”ä Ðconduct€in€Sevier€County€and€his€possessory€conduct€in€Knox€County€constitute€but€one€culpableÐ €Ð Ðcourse€of€conduct€and€cannot€form€the€basis€for€separate€prosecutions.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àà ` àThere€are€two€basic€scenarios€involving€multiple€convictions€which€raise€doubleÐ D!” Ðjeopardy€concerns.€€First,€a€single€course€of€conduct€may€be€proscribed€by€two€or€more€differentÐ 0"€  Ðstatutes€and€charged€under€more€than€one€of€these€statutes.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2dÐ #l! Ð373€(Tenn.€1996).€€Second,€a€defendant€may€engage€in€a€criminal€episode€that€violates€only€oneÐ $X" Ðstatute€but€is€charged€as€multiple€counts€under€that€statute.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2dÐ ô$D # Ð662€(Tenn.€1996).€€The€scenario€presented€in€the€case€at€bar€is€the€latter.€€That€is,€the€defendantÐ à%0!$ Ðengaged€in€a€course€of€criminal€conduct€which€the€state€charged€as€multiple€violations€of€the€sameÐ Ì&"% Ðstatute.€€Our€task€is€to€determine€whether€double€jeopardy€principles€permit€multiple€prosecutionsÐ ¸'#& Ðand€punishments€in€this€instance.€€òòSee€State€v.€Barneyóó,€986€S.W.2d€545€(Tenn.€1999)€(applyingÐ ¤(ô#' ÐòòDentonóó€and€òòPhillipsóó€inquiries€to€double€jeopardy€question).Ð )à$( Ðâ âÐ |*Ì%) Ðà  àà ` àThe€seminal€case€for€double„jeopardy€analysis€of€multiple€count,€same€statute€crimesÐ ° Ðâ âis€òòPhillipsóó.€€That€òòóówas€a€sex„offense€case,€and€its€inquiry€is€specific€to€that€type€of€crime.€€òòSeeÐ œì Ðgenerally€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662.€€Its€principles,€however,€have€been€adapted€for€other€types€ofÐ ˆØ Ðcrimes,€as€well.€€òòSee€generally€State€v€.€Eppsóó,€989€S.W.2d€€742,€745€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1998).òòÐ tÄ ÐóóThose€principles€are:Ð `° ÐÔ‡bXAXXXAÔÔ4‚vt.°ÔÝ‚\ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÝ‚<ÿÿÿÝÝ  ÝÔSŸ ïL œÔÓ SÓÝ‚<ÿÿÿ`1ÝÝ  ÝÝ‚KÿÿÿÝóóòòÔÿÿÔÝ  ÝÔ61ÔÝ‚\ÍO(1I€„€ÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ7t.°V1ÔÔ#†XAXXbXAõ0#Ô݃<ÿÿ`1¦1ÝŒÌŒÝ  Ýà8  à1.€A€single€offense€may€not€be€divided€into€separate€parts;€generally,€a€singleÐ Þ . Ðwrongful€act€may€not€furnish€the€basis€for€more€than€one€criminal€prosecution;€€ÐÊ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à2.€If€each€offense€charged€requires€proof€of€a€fact€not€required€in€proving€the€other,Ð  Y Ðthe€offenses€are€not€multiplicitous;€and€€Ðõ E Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3.€Where€time€and€location€separate€and€distinguish€the€commission€of€the€offenses,Ð 4„  Ðthe€offenses€cannot€be€said€to€have€arisen€out€of€a€single€wrongful€act.Ð p Ð Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.€at€745€(quoting€òòPhillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€665).€€Other€matters€to€be€considered€are€ð ðthe€nature€ofÐ žî  Ðthe€act;€the€time€elapsed€between€the€alleged€conduct;€the€intent€of€the€accused,€i.e.,€was€a€new€intentÐ ŠÚ Ðformed;€and€cumulative€punishment€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€745.€€None€of€these€factors€other€than€the€natureÐ vÆ Ðof€the€act€is€determinative.€€òòIdóó.Ð b² ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€advancing€its€argument€that€double€jeopardy€does€not€prohibit€multipleÐ à0 Ðprosecutions€in€the€case€at€bar,€the€state€claims€that€the€evidence€of€the€two€crimes€is€differentÐ Ì Ðbecause€the€Sevier€County€possession€involved€a€relatively€small€quantity€of€cocaine€for€the€purposeÐ ¸ Ðof€sale,€whereas€the€Knox€County€possession€involved€a€large€quantity€of€cocaine€stored€in€aÐ ¤ô Ðresidence.€€We€acknowledge€that€the€evidence€of€the€two€offenses€is€not€identical,€but€the€Knox€andÐ à ÐSevier€Counties€offenses€appear€very€much€to€be€a€division€of€a€single€wrongful€act.€€The€defendantÐ |Ì Ðpossessed€a€large€amount€of€contraband,€which€he€stored€in€his€home.€€Although€he€separated€partÐ h¸ Ðof€it€for€the€purpose€of€selling€it€in€Sevier€County,€the€state€induced€him€to€do€so€and€has€nowÐ T¤ Ðattempted€to€prosecute€him€separately€for€the€cocaine€he€possessed€in€one€location€until€the€stateððsÐ @ Ðinducement.€€The€nature€of€the€act€for€which€the€defendant€was€prosecuted€in€both€cases€„€„€that€is,Ð , | Ðpossession€„€„€€is€the€same€for€both€offenses.€€The€defendant€was€simultaneously€in€possession€of€theÐ !h Ðcocaine€he€kept€in€his€home€in€Knox€County€and€the€subdivided€portion€he€took€to€Sevier€County,Ð "T Ðand€the€locations€were€different€only€because€of€the€stateððs€involvement.€€The€defendantððs€intent€wasÐ ð"@ Ðthe€same€for€both€offenses.Ð Ü#, ÐÌà  àà ` àòòóóThus,€we€conclude€that€conviction€of€two€violations€of€the€same€statute€under€theÐ Z&ª!! Ðcircumstances€presented€here€would€offend€double€jeopardy€principles.€€òòAccord€Brown€v.€Ohioóó,€432Ð F'–"" ÐU.S.€161,€97€S.€Ct.€2221€(1977)€(double€jeopardy€principles€prohibited€defendantððs€conviction€ofÐ 2(‚## Ðboth€auto€theft€and€joyriding€of€stolen€vehicle€nine€days€later).€€To€hold€otherwise€would€give€licenseÐ )n$$ Ðto€prosecutors€to€ð ðavoid€[the€Double€Jeopardy€Clauseððs]€limitation€by€the€simple€expedient€ofÐ  *Z%% Ðdividing€a€single€crime€into€a€series€of€temporal€or€spatial€units.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€432€U.S.€at€169,€97€S.€Ct.€atÐ ö*F&& Ð2227;€òòsee€Lumpkins€v.€Stateóó,€584€S.W.2d€244,€245€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1979);€òòcf.€Ramsey€v.€Stateóó,€37Ð â+2'' ÐTenn.€(5€Sneed)€652,€655€(1858)€("It€is€granted€that€a€man€may€commit€several€distinct€offenses€inÐ ° Ðthe€same€act,€and€that€the€prosecutor€may€carve€as€large€an€offense€out€of€the€transaction€as€he€can;Ð œì Ðyet€the€better€rule€seems€to€be,€that€he€is€not€at€liberty€to€cut€but€once.").€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€so€holding,€we€have€considered€the€stateððs€citation€to€òòState€v.€James€David€LamorÐ  V ÐPerryóó,€No.€E1999„00271„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€5,€2000),€òòperm.€app.Ð ò B Ðdeniedóó€(Tenn.€2001).€€Although€that€case€is€factually€similar€to€the€one€at€bar,€it€nevertheless€is€notÐ Þ . Ðcontrolling.€€As€in€the€present€case,€the€defendant€in€òòJames€David€Lamor€Perryóó€was€apprehendedÐ Ê  Ðat€the€scene€of€a€drug€transaction.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€2„3.€€Cocaine€and€marijuana€were€discovered€in€theÐ ¶  Ðvehicle€in€which€he€was€a€passenger.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€3.€€His€home€was€searched€several€hours€later,Ð ¢ ò  Ðand€more€cocaine€and€marijuana€were€discovered.€€òòIdóó.€€The€defendant€was€charged€with€two€countsÐ ŽÞ  Ðof€cocaine€possession€within€a€school€zone€and€two€counts€of€marijuana€possession.€€òòIdóó.€€He€wasÐ zÊ  Ðconvicted€of€both€cocaine€offenses€and€one€of€the€marijuana€offenses.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€4.€€On€appeal,Ð f¶  Ðthe€defendant€argued€that€double€jeopardy€principles€prohibited€his€dual€cocaine€possessionÐ R¢  Ðconvictions.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€10.€€The€court€rejected€this€claim,€holding€that€òòDentonóóððs€same€criminalÐ >Ž  Ðepisode€inquiry€did€not€prohibit€dual€convictions€and€punishments.€€òòId.óó€€The€convictions€of€whichÐ *z Ðthe€defendant€complained€were€both€for€cocaine€possession€òòwithin€a€school€zone.€€Id.óó,€slip€op.€at€3„4.€Ð f ÐThe€evidence€showed€that€the€possession€in€the€co„defendantððs€vehicle€took€place€within€a€òòdifferentóóÐ R Ðschool€zone€than€the€possession€at€the€defendantððs€residence.€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€10.€€Ð î> ÐÌà  àà ` àòòJames€David€Lamor€Perryóó€is€distinguishable€in€several€respects.€€The€crimes€in€theÐ l¼ Ðpresent€case€do€not€involve€drug€possession€within€multiple€school€zones.€€They€simply€involveÐ X¨ Ðpossession€of€a€quantity€of€cocaine,€some€of€which€was€separated€for€the€purpose€of€an€individualÐ D” Ðdrug€transaction.€€This€factual€distinction€is€also€significant€in€view€of€òòPhillipsððóó€inquiry€into€separateÐ 0€ Ðtime€and€location€between€offenses.€€òòSee€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€665.€€Further,€there€is€a€significantÐ l Ðdistinction€to€be€found€in€the€involvement€of€a€law€enforcement€officer€in€the€present€case.€€TheÐ X Ðuncontroverted€evidence€is€that€the€officer€induced€the€defendant€away€from€his€home€with€some€ofÐ ôD Ðthe€contraband€to€a€location€in€Sevier€County.€€The€defendant€was€thereby€induced€by€the€state€toÐ à0 Ðseparate€a€lesser€quantity€of€cocaine€from€a€larger€quantity.€€In€contrast,€in€òòJames€David€LamorÐ Ì ÐPerryóó,€law€enforcement€was€simply€alerted€by€an€informant€that€a€transaction€was€to€take€place.€Ð ¸  ÐòòJames€David€Lamor€Perry,€óó€slip€op.€at€2.€€There€is€no€indication€in€the€òòPerryóóopinion€that€the€stateÐ ¤!ô Ðhad€any€involvement€in€inducing€or€arranging€the€transaction.Ð "à ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€also€have€not€overlooked€several€prior€decisions€of€this€court€which€reachÐ %^ ! Ðdifferent€results€on€similar€facts.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€State€v.€Jose€D.€Holmesóó,€No.€02C01-9411-CR-00251Ð ú%J!" Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Nov.€22,€1995),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Walter€Jones,Ð æ&6"# ÐóóNo.€02C01-9307-CR-00155òòóó€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€24,€1994),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.Ð Ò'"#$ Ð1995);€òòState€v.€Chitwoodóó,€735€S.W.2d€471€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€Those€òòóócases€predate€theÐ ¾($% Ðanalytical€framework€of€òòDentonóó€and€òòPhillipsóó.€€€Further,€and€perhaps€more€significantly,€those€casesÐ ª)ú$& Ðare€distinguishable€because€the€defendants€therein€were€charged€with€an€actual€sale€of€drugs€as€wellÐ –*æ%' Ðas€possession€of€drugs,€rather€than€two€possessory€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„417,Ð ‚+Ò&( ÐSentencing€Commððn€Comments€(1997)€(ð ðThe€commission€wished€to€make€it€clear€that€each€of€theseÐ ° Ðacts€was€a€separate€offense€and€therefore€listed€the€manufacture,€delivery,€sale€or€possession€withÐ œì Ðintent€to€manufacture,€deliver€or€sell€each€as€a€separate€subsection.ðð).€€à  àà x àà Ð àÐ ˆØ Ðà  àà ` àIn€summary,€we€hold€that€the€defendantððs€double€jeopardy€rights€bar€the€Knox€CountyÐ Ç Ðprosecution.׃|×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€For€that€reason,€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€theÐ ³ ÐKnox€County€presentment.Ð Ÿ ï Ðò òÌà@ÄÄ#ìàII€„€Rule€8(a)ˆÐ  m Ðó óÌà  àà ` àNotwithstanding€our€holding€that€double€jeopardy€bars€the€Knox€County€prosecution,Ð ›ë  Ðit€is€our€duty€to€address€the€remaining€issues.€òòSee€Jacobs€v.€Stateóó,€224€Tenn.€106,€107,€450€S.W.2dÐ ‡×  Ð581,€581€(1970)€(all€issues€should€be€addressed€by€court€of€criminal€appeals)òò;€State€v.€Pendergrassóó,Ð sà  Ð13€S.W.3d€389,€395€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999)€(court€of€criminal€appeals€should€address€all€issuesÐ _¯  Ðdue€to€possibility€of€appeal€of€courtððs€decision),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000).€€We€will€thereforeÐ K›  Ðendeavor€to€do€so.Ð 7‡ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide,Ð µ ÐÌà8  àTwo€or€more€offenses€shall€be€joined€in€the€same€indictment,€presentment€orÐ 3ƒ Ðinformation,€with€each€offense€stated€in€a€separate€count,€or€consolidated€pursuantÐ o Ðto€Rule€13€if€the€offenses€are€based€upon€the€same€conduct€or€arise€from€the€sameÐ  [ Ðcriminal€episode€and€if€such€offenses€are€known€to€the€appropriate€prosecutingÐ ÷G Ðofficial€at€the€time€of€the€return€of€the€indictment(s),€presentment(s),€orÐ ã3 Ðinformation(s)€and€if€they€are€within€the€jurisdiction€of€a€single€court.€€A€defendantÐ Ï Ðshall€not€be€subject€to€separate€trials€for€multiple€offenses€falling€within€thisÐ »  Ðsubsection€unless€they€are€severed€pursuant€to€Rule€14.[׃}d×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×]Ч÷Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(a)€(footnote€added).€€The€trial€court€found€and€the€state€concedes€on€appeal€that€Ð %!u Ðthe€offenses€charged€in€Knox€and€Sevier€Counties€arose€from€the€same€criminal€episode€and€wereÐ "a Ðâ âknown€to€the€appropriate€prosecuting€official€at€the€time€the€Sevier€County€presentment€wasÐ ý"M Ðreturned.€€The€record€before€us€supports€the€trial€courtððs€determination€and€the€stateððs€concession.€Ð ° ÐTherefore,€the€only€question€is€whether€both€offenses€are€within€the€jurisdiction€of€a€single€court.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àà ` àIn€that€regard,€Rule€18€is€instructive.€€It€provides,€ð ðIf€one€or€more€elements€of€anÐ j Ðoffense€are€committed€in€one€county€and€one€or€more€elements€in€another,€the€offense€may€beÐ  V Ðprosecuted€in€either€county.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€18(b).€€The€offenses€in€this€case€consist€ofÐ ò B Ðknowingly€possessing€a€controlled€substance€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ Þ . Ð39„17„417(a)(4)€(Supp.€2000).€€It€is€beyond€question€that€all€of€the€elements€of€the€offense€allegedÐ Ê  Ðin€the€Knox€County€presentment€occurred€solely€in€Knox€County.€€The€issue€is€whether€one€or€moreÐ ¶  Ðelements€of€the€Sevier€County€offense€occurred€in€Knox€County,€thereby€giving€Knox€CountyÐ ¢ ò  Ðconcurrent€jurisdiction€with€Sevier€County€over€the€offense.€€Ð ŽÞ  ÐÌà  àà ` àThere€is€evidence€that€a€TBI€agent€called€the€defendant€in€Knox€County€and€requestedÐ  \  Ðhe€bring€cocaine€to€Sevier€County€for€sale.€€Law€enforcement€officers€saw€the€defendant€travel€fromÐ øH  Ðhis€Knox€County€home€to€the€appointed€location€in€Sevier€County.€€The€defendant€had€cocaine€inÐ ä4 Ðhis€possession,€and€more€cocaine€was€later€found€at€his€Knox€County€home.€€Circumstantially,€theÐ Ð  Ðuncontroverted€evidence€strongly€suggests€that€while€he€was€in€Knox€County,€the€defendantÐ ¼  Ðpossessed€cocaine€with€the€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€We€therefore€conclude€that€Knox€County€hadÐ ¨ø Ðjurisdiction€to€prosecute€the€Sevier€County€offense.€€òòCf.óó€òòJerry€W.€Burton€v.€Stateóó,€No.€Ð ”ä Ð03C01-9809-CR-00340€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€July€23,€1999)€(defendant€properlyÐ €Ð Ðprosecuted€in€Hawkins€County€for€first€degree€criminal€sexual€contact€where€rape€occurred€inÐ l¼ ÐHamblen€County;€defendant€controlled€victims€by€holding€knife€to€their€throats€in€Hawkins€CountyÐ X¨ Ðbefore€raping€and€throwing€them€from€a€bridge€in€Hawkins€County€after€rape);€òòState€v.€Hamptonóó,Ð D” Ð634€S.W.2d€635€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982)€(defendant€who€was€convicted€of€unlawful€credit€cardÐ 0€ Ðpossession€properly€prosecuted€in€Benton€County,€although€he€was€apprehended€and€credit€cardsÐ l Ðwere€discovered€in€his€possession€in€Decatur€County€following€high„speed€automobile€chase€thatÐ X Ðoriginated€in€Benton€County;€court€noting€that€crime€was€one€of€possession,€which€is€continuing,€andÐ ôD Ðthat€evidence€was€overwhelming€that€defendant€did€not€stop€and€obtain€credit€cards€after€crossingÐ à0 Ðinto€Decatur€County).€€That€conclusion€leads€us€to€a€further€determination€that€Rule€8(a)€does,Ð Ì Ðindeed,€require€that€the€offenses€be€joined€for€prosecution.€€Because€that€rule€provides€that€ð ð[a]Ð ¸  Ðdefendant€òòshallóó€not€be€subject€to€separate€trials€for€multiple€offenses€falling€within€this€subsection,ððÐ ¤!ô ÐTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€8(a)€(emphasis€added),€the€Knox€County€prosecution€is€barred.€€Even€if€we€haveÐ "à Ðincorrectly€determined€in€section€I€above€that€double€jeopardy€principles€bar€the€Knox€CountyÐ |#Ì  Ðprosecution,€the€defendant€was€nevertheless€entitled€under€Rule€8(a)€to€prevail€on€his€motion€toÐ h$¸! Ðdismiss€the€Knox€County€presentment.Ð T%¤ " ÐÌÌÌà@00%ìàò òIII€„€DelayˆÐ P* %& Ðó óÐ +ß&' Ðà  àà ` àFinally,€we€consider€the€defendantððs€claim€that€unreasonable€delay€prevents€the€stateÐ ° Ðfrom€proceeding€on€the€Knox€County€prosecution.׃~×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€will€consider€the€claim€both€as€one€ofÐ œì Ðspeedy€trial€and€of€due€process€guarantees.Ð ˆØ Ðà  à¹Ó€ (š}03ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òÝ‚3£"oÝÔ2š}ÔÚ  ÚAÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝSpeedy€Trial€ó ó݃3£"oRo݌РV(#(# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àà ` àThe€United€States€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€guarantee€the€criminally€accused€theÐ „ Ô Ðright€to€a€speedy€trial€in€all€criminal€prosecutions.€€U.S.€Const.€amends.€VI,€XIV;€Tenn.€Const.€art.Ð p À ÐI,€ðð€9.€€The€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€also€statutory€in€Tennessee.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40-14-101Ð \ ¬ Ð(1997).€€In€addition,€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€for€the€dismissal€of€anÐ H˜  Ðindictment,€presentment,€information€or€criminal€complaint€ð ð[i]f€there€is€unnecessary€delay€inÐ 4„  Ðpresenting€the€charge€to€a€grand€jury€against€a€defendant€who€has€been€held€to€answer€to€the€trialÐ  p  Ðcourt,€or€if€there€is€unnecessary€delay€in€bringing€a€defendant€to€trial€.€.€.€."€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€48(b).€Ð  \  ÐThe€right€to€a€speedy€trial€is€unaffected€by€the€fact€that€the€accused€is€incarcerated.€€òòArrowsmith€v.Ð øH  ÐStateóó,€131€Tenn.€480,€486,€175€S.W.€545,€546€(1914);€òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Woodóó,€924€S.W.2d€342,€347Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€1996).Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àA€defendantððs€speedy€trial€rights,€according€to€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,€doÐ Nž Ðnot€arise€ð ðuntil€after€formal€accusation,€either€by€arrest€or€by€grand€jury€action."€€òòUnited€States€v.Ð :Š ÐMarionóó,€404€U.S.€307,€320,€92€S.€Ct.€455,€463€(1971).€€Recently,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ &v Ðdecided€that€the€issuance€of€an€arrest€warrant,€by€itself,€is€not€enough€to€trigger€the€protection€of€theÐ b ÐSixth€Amendment€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€òòState€v.€Utleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€489,€493€(Tenn.€1997).€€EitherÐ þN Ða€formal€grand€jury€action€or€the€actual€restraints€of€an€arrest€are€required.€€òòIdóó.Ð ê: ÐÌà  àà ` àWhen€an€accused€seeks€the€dismissal€of€a€prosecution€based€upon€the€denial€of€theÐ h¸ Ðconstitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€the€accused€must€establish€a€period€of€delay€that€isÐ T¤ Ð"presumptively€prejudicial."€€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2d€1,€12€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€(citingÐ @ ÐòòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€651,€112€S.€Ct.€2686,€2690€(1992));€òòsee€Barker€v.€Wingoóó,Ð , | Ð407€U.S.€514,€530,€92€S.€Ct.€2182,€2192€(1972).€€The€length€of€the€delay€turns€upon€the€peculiarÐ !h Ðcircumstances€of€each€case,€and€delay€that€can€be€tolerated€for€"an€ordinary€street€crime"€is€generallyÐ "T Ðmuch€less€than€for€a€serious,€complex€felony€charge.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530-31,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2193.€Ð ð"@ ÐA€delay€of€one€year€or€longer€marks€the€point€at€which€courts€deem€the€delay€lengthy€enough€toÐ Ü#, Ðtrigger€further€inquiry.€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€652€n.1,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2691€n.1;€òòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€atÐ È$  Ð494.òòóóÐ ´%!! Ðâ âà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àÐ ó&C"" Ðà  àà ` àIf€this€one€year€threshold€is€crossed,€ð ðthe€presumption€that€delay€has€prejudiced€theÐ ° Ðâ âaccused€intensifies€over€timeðð;€nevertheless,€a€balancing€test€of€the€following€factors€determines€theÐ œì Ðmerits€of€the€speedy€trial€issue:€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay,€(2)€the€reasons€for€the€delay,€(3)€theÐ ˆØ Ðaccusedððs€assertion€of€the€right€to€speedy€trial,€and€(4)€the€prejudice€resulting€from€the€delay.€€òòStateÐ tÄ Ðv.€Michael€D.€Simmons€óóð"ð€S.W.3d€ð"ð€,€ð"ð€,€No.€M1999„00099„SC„R11„CD,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.,Ð `° ÐSept.€7,€2001);€òòsee€Barkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192€(establishing€four„part€balancing€test);Ð L œ ÐòòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€82„83€(Tenn.€1973)€(recognizing€and€adopting€the€balancing€test€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐòòBarkeróó).€€On€appellate€review,€the€trial€court's€determination€in€this€regard€is€subject€to€review€forÐ $ t Ðabuse€of€discretion.€€òòSee€Jeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€9.€Ð  ` ÐÌØ! !ØÓ€ '(eh80 ÓÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òà  àÝ‚3£ÝÔ2ehÔÚ  Ú1Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝLength€of€Delay݃3£[ÝŒÐŽÞ ` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýó óÌà  àà ` àOur€first€task€is€to€determine€the€triggering€date€for€measuring€the€period€of€the€delay.€Ð  \  ÐThere€are€two€possibilities€ð!ð€the€date€of€the€defendantððs€arrest€on€March€13,€1998€or€the€date€of€theÐ øH  Ðreturn€of€the€Knox€County€presentment€on€February€18,€1999.€€The€appellate€record€does€not€containÐ ä4 Ðthe€arrest€warrant,€and€there€is€no€other€information€to€indicate€whether€the€arrest€was€pursuant€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€Sevier€County€possession€offense€of€which€the€defendant€was€ultimately€convicted,€the€allegedÐ ¼  ÐKnox€County€possession€offense,€or€both.€€In€the€absence€of€this€information€from€the€appellateÐ ¨ø Ðrecord,€we€will€presume€that€the€March€1998€arrest€was€for€the€Sevier€County€offense€only,€and€weÐ ”ä Ðwill€use€the€later€date€of€February€18,€1999€as€the€triggering€date.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b)Ð €Ð Ð(requiring€the€appellant€to€bear€the€primary€burden€of€ensuring€that€the€appellate€record€conveys€aÐ l¼ Ðfair,€accurate€and€complete€account€of€what€transpired€with€respect€to€the€issues€forming€the€basesÐ X¨ Ðof€appeal).Ð D” ÐÌà  àà ` àThus,€for€our€purposes,€òòóóthe€speedy€trial€clock€began€to€tick€on€February€18,€1999Ð Â Ðwhen€the€Knox€County€presentment€was€returned.€€A€year€and€eight€months€elapsed€between€theÐ ®þ Ðpresentmentððs€return€and€the€defendantððs€motion€for€interlocutory€appeal€on€October€18,€1999.€Ð šê ÐGiven€the€delay€of€more€than€a€year€between€grand€jury€action€and€an€as„yet„to„take„place€trial,Ð †Ö Ðfurther€inquiry€is€warranted.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192;€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€atÐ r  Ð83-84;€however,€ð ðthis€period€of€delay€is€not€necessarily€unreasonable€when€compared€to€other€cases.ðð€Ð ^!® ÐòòMichael€D.€Simmonsóó,€ð"ð€S.W.3d€at€ð"ð,€slip€op.€at€4€(delay€of€23€months€deemed€ð ðnot€necessarilyÐ J"š Ðunreasonableðð).€€In€our€view,€the€delay€is€not€egregious,€given€the€fact€that€the€defendant€is€chargedÐ 6#† Ðwith€a€Class€A€felony.Ð "$r  ÐÌÌÌÓ€ d(uh88'ÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òà  àÝ‚3£ž‹ÝÔ2uhÔÚ  Ú2Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝReason€for€Delay݃3£ž‹Ú‹ÝŒÐ)n$$` (#` (# Ðâ âŒÝ  Ýà  àó óÐ ]*­%% Ðà  àà ` àThe€next€factor€is€the€reason€for€the€delay.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192;Ð ° Ðâ âòòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€83-84.€€The€reasons€for€delay€fall€within€four€categories:€(1)€intentional€delayÐ œì Ðfor€tactical€advantage€or€to€harass€the€accused,€(2)€bureaucratic€indifference€or€negligence,€(3)Ð ˆØ Ðnecessary€delay€for€fair€and€effective€prosecution,€and€(4)€delay€in€which€the€defense€has€beenÐ tÄ Ðcomplicit.€€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€346„47.€€Intentional€delay€must€be€weighted€heavily€against€theÐ `° Ðgovernment,€while€negligence€or€oversight€are€considered€against€the€government€but€affordedÐ L œ Ðcomparatively€more€neutral€weight.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192.€€Valid€reasons,€suchÐ 8 ˆ Ðas€the€inability€to€locate€a€witness,€justify€an€appropriate€delay.€€òòId.óó,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192.Ð $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€record€in€the€present€case,€as€in€òòMichael€D.€Simmonsóó,€shows€negligence€orÐ ¢ ò  Ðoversight€on€the€part€of€the€state.€€òòSee€Michael€D.€Simmonsóó,€ð"ð€S.W.3d€at€ð"ð,€slip€op.€at€4.€€ThisÐ ŽÞ  Ðfactor€weighs€against€the€state€ð ðto€some€extent.ðð€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€4òò€óó;€òòsee€State€v.€Glenn€T.€Tidwellóó,€No.Ð zÊ  ÐM2000„00538„CCA„R3„CD,€slip€op.€at€3„4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€July€9,€2001)€(delay€inÐ f¶  Ðserving€warrant€due€to€understaffing€of€sheriffððs€department€is€chargeable€to€the€state);€òòcf.€State€v.Ð R¢  ÐBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€84€(Tenn.€1973)€(stateððs€lack€of€financial€resources€to€pay€for€transportationÐ >Ž  Ðof€defendant€who€was€incarcerated€in€another€state€was€not€legitimate€reason€to€deny€him€a€speedyÐ *z Ðtrial).€€ð ðHowever,€when€the€reason€for€the€delay€is€negligence,€the€weight€to€be€assigned€this€factorÐ f Ðdiffers€depending€upon€the€length€of€the€delay.ðð€€òòMichael€D.€Simmonsóó,€ð"ð€S.W.3d€at€ð"ð,€slip€op.€atÐ R Ð4.€€The€delay€in€the€present€case€is€not€substantial,€and€consequently€the€reason€for€the€delay€doesÐ î> Ðnot€weigh€heavily€against€the€state.€€òòId.óóÐ Ú* ÐÌÓ€ f(…h88dÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òà  àÝ‚3£x–ÝÔ2…hÔÚ  Ú3Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝAssertion€of€Speedy€Trial€Rightó ó݃3£x–´–ÝŒÐX¨` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  ÝÌà  àà ` àThe€third€factor€is€whether€the€defendant€has€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€Ð Ö& ÐòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192;€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€83-84.€€The€record€reflects€thatÐ Â Ðthe€defendant,€through€counsel€who€was€then€representing€him€on€his€Sevier€County€offense,€soughtÐ ®þ Ðto€expedite€the€Knox€County€proceedings€on€April€6,€1999€and€June€17,€1999.€€Although€neitherÐ šê Ðcommunication€appears€to€have€contained€a€demand€for€speedy€trial,€as€such,€it€is€clear€from€theÐ †Ö Ðevidence€that€the€tenor€of€communication€on€both€dates€was€to€that€effect.€€Further,€the€letter€counselÐ r  Ðsent€to€the€assistant€district€attorney€in€June€1999€expressed€concern€about€prejudice€as€a€result€ofÐ ^!® Ðthe€delay.€€Approximately€six€months€after€the€presentment€was€served€and€counsel€was€appointed,Ð J"š Ðthe€defendant€more€formally€asserted€his€speedy€trial€rights€by€filing€a€motion€to€dismiss€based€uponÐ 6#† Ðdenial€of€a€speedy€trial.€€Given€these€circumstances,€the€defendant€tolled€the€passage€of€time€byÐ "$r  Ðasserting€his€speedy€trial€rights,€and€in€the€balancing€analysis€there€is€no€detriment€to€him€on€theÐ %^ ! Ðquestion€of€asserting€his€rights.€òòóóÐ ú%J!" ÐÌÌÓ€ h(•¨08fÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òà  àÝ‚3£‰ÝÔ2•¨ÔÚ  Ú4Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝPrejudice€from€Delayó ó݃3£‰Å݌з)%%` (#` (# Ðâ âŒÝ  Ýà  àà ` àÐ ö*F&& Ðà  àà ` àThe€final€òòBarkeróó€factor€relates€to€the€prejudice€resulting€from€the€delay.€€òòBarkeróó,€407Ð ° Ðâ âU.S.€at€531,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192;€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€83-84.€€The€defendant€has€three€interestsÐ œì Ðprotected€by€the€prejudice€factor:€(1)€preventing€oppressive€pretrial€incarceration;€(2)€minimizingÐ ˆØ Ðthe€accusedððs€anxiety€and€concern;€and€(3)€limiting€the€possibility€of€impairment€to€preparation€ofÐ tÄ Ðthe€defense.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2193.€€The€prejudice€inquiry€is€the€most€importantÐ `° Ðof€the€òòBarkeróó€considerations,€particularly€as€regards€the€ability€to€prepare€a€defense.€€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,Ð L œ Ð888€S.W.2d€776,€778€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€opportunity€for€concurrent,€or€at€least€partially€concurrent,€sentencing€may€be€lostÐ ¶  Ðwhen€a€delay€occurs.€€òòSmith€v.€Hooeyóó,€393€U.S.€374,€378,€89€S.€Ct.€575,€577;€òòseeóó€òòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2dÐ ¢ ò  Ðat€495;€òòState€v.€Joseph€Hartóó,€No.€02C01„9902„CC„00075,€slip€op.€at€9„10€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ŽÞ  ÐJackson,€Sept.€20,€1999)òòóó.€€In€this€case,€the€defendant€received€an€eight„year€sentence€in€SevierÐ zÊ  ÐCounty,€and€he€faces€a€sentence€of€fifteen€to€60€years€if€convicted€of€the€Class€A€felony€charged€inÐ f¶  ÐKnox€County.€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„111(b)(1)€(1997)€(authorized€term€of€imprisonmentÐ R¢  Ðfor€Class€A€felony).€€To€the€extent€that€the€defendant€has€served€a€portion€of€his€eight„year€SevierÐ >Ž  ÐCounty€sentence,€including€all€of€the€incarcerative€portion€of€that€sentence,€he€has€been€denied€theÐ *z Ðopportunity€for€partially€concurrent€sentencing€for€an€equal€period€of€time€in€his€Knox€County€case.€Ð f ÐIt€must€be€remembered,€though,€that€during€the€period€of€the€delay€the€defendant€served€only€a€smallÐ R Ðportion€of€the€entire€eight„year€Sevier€County€sentence.€€€We€also€note€that€there€is€no€evidence€inÐ î> Ðthis€case€that€the€conditions€of€defendantððs€Sevier€County€jail€confinement€were€more€oppressiveÐ Ú* Ðdue€to€the€outstanding€Knox€County€charge.€€òòSeeSmithóó,€393€U.S.€at€378,€89€S.€Ct.€at€577.€€Moreover,Ð Æ Ðthe€defendant€has€established€only€a€ð ðmere€possibilityðð€of€concurrent€sentencing.€€òòMichael€D.Ð ² ÐSimmonsóó,€ð"ð€S.W.3d€at€ð"ð,€slip€op.€at€6.€€ð ðA€lost€òòpossibility€óóof€obtaining€concurrent€sentencing€isÐ žî Ðnot€sufficient€prejudice€to€establish€a€speedy€trial€violation.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€slip€op.€at€6.€€(Emphasis€added.)Ð ŠÚ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€second€portion€of€the€prejudice€inquiry€focuses€on€anxiety€and€concern€of€theÐ X Ðaccused.€€òòSee€Barkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2193.€€The€record€in€this€case€is€silent,€and€weÐ ôD Ðdecline€to€speculate€beyond€the€normal€anxiety€and€concern€attendant€to€felony€charges.Ð à0 ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€third€portion€of€the€prejudice€inquiry€is€that€of€impairment€to€the€defense.€€òòSeeÐ ^!® Ðid.€óó€The€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€the€obvious€difficulty€in€showing€prejudice€from€the€passageÐ J"š Ðof€time€in€eroding€evidence€and€witness€recollections.€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€655,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2692.€Ð 6#† ÐIt€has€said€that€ð ðexcessive€delay€presumptively€compromises€the€reliability€of€a€trial€in€ways€thatÐ "$r  Ðneither€party€can€prove€or,€for€that€matter,€identify.ðð€òòóó€òòId.óó,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2692.€€However,€courts€willÐ %^ ! Ðstill€look€for€a€demonstration€of€actual€prejudice.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Woodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€348„49;€òòState€v.Ð ú%J!" ÐEric€Larezóó,€No.€03C01-9810-CR-00379,€slip€op.€at€10„11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Nov.€4,Ð æ&6"# Ð1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000);€òòState€v.€Roger€David€Browderóó,€No.€02C01-9606-GS-00201,Ð Ò'"#$ Ðslip€op.€at€11€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Feb.€9,€1998)€(ð ð[E]ven€though€affirmative€proof€ofÐ ¾($% Ðparticularized€prejudice€is€not€essential€to€every€speedy€trial€claim€.€.€.€,€we€find€it€difficult€to€evaluateÐ ª)ú$& Ðthe€degree€to€which€the€delay€prejudiced€the€defendant€absent€some€specific€information€about€theÐ –*æ%' Ðdeprivations€which€he€incurred.ðð),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998).Ð ‚+Ò&( Їà  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€death€of€Mr.€Sutton,€the€defendant€acknowledges€that€he€has€notÐ ° Ðdemonstrated€when€this€potential€witness€died.€€In€fact,€there€is€evidence€in€the€record€that€Mr.Ð œì ÐSutton€expired€before€the€district€attorneyððs€office€received€the€investigative€file€in€mid„1998.€€ThisÐ ˆØ Ðwas€prior€to€commencement€of€the€delay€of€which€the€defendant€complains.€€In€other€words,€theÐ tÄ Ðdelay€did€not€cause€the€defendant€to€lose€any€potential€benefit€of€this€witnessððs€participation€in€theÐ `° Ðinvestigation€or€trial€of€the€case.€€òòSee€Barkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2193€(ð ðIf€witnesses€dieÐ L œ Ðor€disappearòò€during€a€delayóó,€the€prejudice€is€obvious.ðð)€(emphasis€added).Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àFinally,€the€defendant€claims€he€was€unable€to€prepare€a€defense€while€incarcerated.€Ð ¶  ÐHis€only€specific€allegation€is€that€ð ðthe€investigation€of€Mr.€Sutton€did€not€take€place€to€attempt€toÐ ¢ ò  Ðobtain€information€about€him€that€at€least€would€have€been€fresh€shortly€after€Mr.€Suttonððs€death.ðð€Ð ŽÞ  ÐThere€is€no€allegation€what€this€investigation€might€have€revealed,€and€the€record€is€generallyÐ zÊ  Ðambiguous€regarding€Mr.€Suttonððs€involvement€in€the€Knox€County€crime.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€record€in€this€caseÐ f¶  Ðis€simply€too€vague€for€us€to€conclude€that€any€actual€prejudice€to€preparation€of€the€defense€hasÐ R¢  Ðbeen€shown.€€Ð >Ž  ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€summary,€we€find€an€absence€of€actual€prejudice.€€Given€the€brevity€of€the€delayÐ ¼  Ðfollowing€the€expiration€of€the€first€year,€any€presumed€prejudice€is€of€little€or€no€consequence.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÓ€ q(Õ£80hÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òà  àÝ‚3£I¹ÝÔ2Õ£ÔÚ  Ú5Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0 ` àÝ  ÝBalance€of€Factors݃3£I¹…¹ÝŒÐ&v` (#` (# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àó óÌà  àà ` àòòóóIn€balancing€the€òòBarkeróó€factors,€the€stateððs€bureaucratic€indifference€or€negligenceÐ ¤ô Ðin€serving€the€defendant€with€the€charges€and€the€defendantððs€timely€assertion€of€his€speedy€trialÐ à Ðrights€weigh€modestly€in€his€favor;€however,€òòóówe€balance€these€considerations€against€the€length€ofÐ |Ì Ðthe€delay€itself.€€Although€the€delay€of€one€year€and€eight€months€is€lengthy€enough€to€trigger€aÐ h¸ ÐòòBarkeróó€inquiry,€it€is€not€unreasonably€lengthy€in€view€of€the€complexity€and€gravity€inherent€in€aÐ T¤ Ðdual„count€Class€A€felony€drug€case.€€òòSee€Barkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530-31,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2193€(allowingÐ @ Ðfor€more€delay€in€case€of€complex€felony€case).€€As€such,€we€view€the€delay€as€not€egregious€givenÐ , | Ðthe€gravity€of€the€offenses€charged.€€We€believe€the€length€of€the€delay€in€view€of€the€type€of€caseÐ !h Ðis€a€strong€counterbalance€to€the€factors€favoring€the€defendant.€€The€defendant€has€not€demonstratedÐ "T Ðerror€in€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€he€suffered€no€speedy€trial€violation.Ð ð"@ ÐÌÓ€ (ª½88qÓØ! !ØÝ"‚3£"ÝÝ  Ýò òÝ‚3£²¿ÝÔ2ª½ÔÚ  ÚBÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  àÝ  ÝDue€Process€ó ó݃3£²¿â¿ÝŒÐn%¾ (#(# ÐŒÝ  Ýà  àà ` àÐ ­&ý!! Ðà  àà ` àWhile€speedy€trial€guarantees€protect€an€accused€from€unreasonable€delay€betweenÐ ° Ðthe€commencement€of€adversarial€proceedings€and€trial,€due€process€provides€that€protection€for€theÐ œì Ðtime€between€the€commission€of€the€crime€and€the€commencement€of€adversarial€proceedings.€òòóó€òòStateÐ ˆØ Ðv.€Grayóó,€917€S.W.2d€668,€673€(Tenn.€1996).€€This€due€process€guarantee€is€found€in€the€FifthÐ tÄ ÐAmendment€and€Article€I,€sections€8€and€9€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amends.Ð `° ÐV,€XIV;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðððð€8,€9;€òòGrayóó,€917€S.W.2d€at€673.Ð L œ ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€defendant€in€this€case€argues€that€his€due€process€rights€were€violated€becauseÐ Ê  Ðð ðthe€delay€was€almost€two€years€from€the€alleged€offense€until€Mr.€Easterly€was€able€to€see€theÐ ¶  Ðpresentment.ðð€€We€disagree€with€the€defendantððs€method€of€calculating€the€delay€time.€€As€statedÐ ¢ ò  Ðabove,€due€process€guarantees€protect€against€unreasonable€delay€between€the€commission€of€theÐ ŽÞ  Ðoffense€and€the€commencement€of€adversarial€proceedings,€that€is,€arrest€or€formal€charge.€€òòSeeóó€òòStateÐ zÊ  Ðv.€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€250,€255„56€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1990)€(due€process€inquiry€based€upon€delayÐ f¶  Ðbetween€offense€and€indictment,€defendant€apparently€not€arrested€prior€to€indictment),€òòoverruledÐ R¢  Ðon€other€grounds€by€State€v.€Hooperóó,€29€S.W.3d€1€(Tenn.€2000)òò.€€€Halquist€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€88,Ð >Ž  Ð93€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972)€(due€process€inquiry€based€upon€delay€between€offense€and€arrest),Ð *z Ðòòoverruled€on€other€grounds€by€State€v.€Jonesóó,€598€S.W.2d€209€(Tenn.€1980)òòóó.€€Thus,€despite€theÐ f Ðdefendantððs€argument€to€the€contrary,€our€law€does€òònotóó€support€a€due€process€inquiry€based€uponÐ R Ðdelay€from€offense€òòto€arraignmentóó.Ð î> ÐÌà  àà ` àWe€therefore€endeavor€to€apply€the€proper€measure€to€the€facts€at€bar.€€The€defendantÐ l¼ Ðbefore€us€is€alleged€to€have€committed€an€offense€in€Knox€County€on€March€13,€1998.€€He€wasÐ X¨ Ðarrested€that€day,€although,€as€discussed€previously,€the€record€does€not€reveal€whether€the€arrest€wasÐ D” Ðpursuant€to€the€Sevier€County€offense,€the€alleged€Knox€County€offense,€or€both.€€Without€knowingÐ 0€ Ðthe€basis€of€the€March€1998€arrest,€we€cannot€determine€whether€to€measure€the€delay€period€withÐ l Ðthe€March€1998€arrest€or€the€February€1999€return€of€the€presentment.€€If€the€former,€both€the€allegedÐ X Ðoffense€and€the€arrest€occurred€the€same€day.€€If€the€latter,€the€delay€was€approximately€elevenÐ ôD Ðmonths.€€Without€complete€information€in€the€record€relative€to€the€March€1998€arrest,€we€cannotÐ à0 Ðeffectively€address€this€issue.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€We€note,€however,€that€a€same„day€arrestÐ Ì Ðcannot€in€good€faith€be€considered€a€delay€at€all.€€Moreover,€even€if€the€delay€were€assumed€to€beÐ ¸  Ðthe€eleven€months€between€the€alleged€offense€and€the€return€of€the€presentment,€the€record€beforeÐ ¤!ô Ðus€does€not€support€a€finding€that€the€state€caused€the€delay€to€harass€the€defendant€or€gain€tacticalÐ "à Ðadvantage.€€òòSee€Dykesóó,€803€S.W.2d€at€255€(due€process€violation€will€be€found€where€(1)€there€hasÐ |#Ì  Ðbeen€a€delay,€(2)€it€has€caused€the€accused€to€suffer€actual€prejudice,€and€(3)€the€state€caused€theÐ h$¸! Ðdelay€to€gain€tactical€advantage€or€to€harass€the€defendant).Ð T%¤ " ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€summary,€we€conclude€that€the€successive€prosecution€in€Knox€County€is€barredÐ Ò'"#$ Ðunder€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€8(a).€€Even€if€it€were€not€so€barred,€double€jeopardyÐ ¾($% Ðprinciples€would€prevent€the€state€from€proceeding€against€the€defendant€on€the€Knox€CountyÐ ª)ú$& Ðpresentment.€€The€Knox€County€presentment€is€dismissed€with€prejudice.à  àà x àÐ –*æ%' ÐÐ Õ+%'( Їò òó óà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð ° Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJAMES€CURWOOD€WITT,€JR.,€JUDGE