ÿWPC* ;# J %UUN[ 0 Æ©4oƒ’ 0 šw@¤ 0Dä 0J( 0Tr 0^Æ 0h$ 0rŒ 0|þ 0†z 0 1u AQ ÆV 0D 0@` 0D  Bä D/ 0d0 B” D3±U>äU *"B)LDCu AM¸Î¶Óó‰|&‹v~±"vÓ/$˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎX(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓ ƒ‰#3|xM (º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó 9 D: ; < D= P> U? D@ bA Ó€M (#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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) !"#%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó d'''÷ÿ dxdP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓüÿP Pd$$$$'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd "2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÄÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ!"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€0XÔÌÌò òJanuaryÏ12,Ï1998ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€0ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ¬Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€record€contains€conflicting€information€about€when€the€state€received€the€request.Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔÓÓò òNotice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment„„Statement€of€enhancementÏand€mitigating€factors.„„ó ó(a)€If€the€district€attorney€general€believes€that€a€defendant€should€beÏsentenced€as€a€multiple,€persistent€or€career€offender,€the€district€attorney€general€shall€file€aÏstatement€thereof€with€the€court€and€defense€counsel€not€less€than€ten€(10)€days€before€trial€orÏacceptance€of€a€guilty€plea;€provided,€that€notice€may€be€waived€by€the€defendant€in€writing€with€theÏconsent€of€the€district€attorney€general€and€the€court€accepting€the€plea.€€Such€statement,€which€shallÏnot€be€made€known€to€the€jury€determining€the€guilt€or€innocence€of€the€defendant€on€the€primaryÏoffense,€must€set€forth€the€nature€of€the€prior€felony€convictions,€the€dates€of€the€convictions€and€theÏidentity€of€the€courts€of€the€convictions.€€The€original€or€certified€copy€of€the€court€record€of€any€priorÏfelony€conviction,€bearing€the€same€name€as€that€by€which€the€defendant€is€charged€in€the€primaryÏoffense,€is€prima€facie€evidence€that€the€defendant€named€therein€is€the€same€as€the€defendantÏbefore€the€court,€and€is€prima€facie€evidence€of€the€facts€set€out€therein.€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔÓÓ(a)€€ò òGeneral€Rule.ó ó€€For€the€purpose€of€attacking€the€credibility€of€a€witness,€evidence€thatÏthe€witness€has€been€convicted€of€a€crime€may€be€admitted€if€the€following€procedures€and€conditionsÏare€satisfied:ÌÓ  Ó***ÌÓ  Ó€€€(3)€€If€the€witness€to€be€impeached€is€the€accused€in€a€criminal€prosecution,€the€State€must€give€theÏaccused€reasonable€written€notice€of€the€impeaching€conviction€before€trial,€and€the€court€uponÏrequest€must€determine€that€the€conviction's€probative€value€on€credibility€outweighs€its€unfairÏprejudicial€effect€on€the€substantive€issues.€€The€court€may€rule€on€the€admissibility€of€such€proof€priorÏto€the€trial€but€in€any€event€shall€rule€prior€to€the€testimony€of€the€accused.€€If€the€court€makes€a€finalÏdetermination€that€such€proof€is€admissible€for€impeachment€purposes,€the€accused€need€not€actuallyÏtestify€at€the€trial€to€later€challenge€the€propriety€of€the€determination.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€/ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔIn€òòSuarezóó,€the€court€stated€the€"180„day€'statute€of€limitations'€is€triggered€when€the€inmateÏdelivers€his€request€...€to€his€captors."€€681€S.W.2d€at€586.€€That€portion€of€òòSuarezóó€was€overruled€inÏòòMooreóó,€where€the€court€ruled€that€the€time€period€did€not€commence€until€"the€date€on€whichÏTennessee€received€notice€...."€€774€S.W.2d€at€593.€€The€portion€of€òòSuarezóó€discussing€waiver,Ïhowever,€is€still€the€law€today.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$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 ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€/ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÑ7€—*XdìXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€0ÔÙ€ ÙßR€342A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€JACKSONóóÌà@ àNOVEMBER€1997€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€02C01„9611„CR„00437Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àSHELBY€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€James€C.€Beasley,€Jr.,€JudgeÌÓÓMYRON€GARMON,à àà àà à*à à(Aggravated€Sexual€Battery)ÌÌà àà àAppellant.à àà àà à*ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌTony€N.€€Braytonà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€2„01€€€à àà àà àÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àTimothy€F.€BehanÌ(on€appeal)à àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌLeslie€Mozingoà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493ÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àÌ201€Poplar€Avenue,€Suite€2„01à àà àDavid€Henry€ÌMemphis,€TN€€38103à àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ(at€trial)à àà àà àà àà à201€Poplar€Avenue,€Third€FloorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àMemphis,€TN€€38103ÌOf€Counsel:ÌÌA.C.€Wharton€à àà àà àà àÌShelby€County€Public€Defender€ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓœ›à@ àòòOPINIONóóÌà àà àThe€defendant,€Myron€Garmon,€was€convicted€of€one€count€ofÏaggravated€sexual€battery.€€The€trial€court€imposed€a€twelve„year€sentence€to€beÏserved€consecutively€to€sentences€imposed€in€the€State€of€Arkansas.€€In€this€appealÏof€right,€the€defendant€claims€that€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€corroborate€hisÏconfession;€he€also€argues€that€the€trial€court€should€have€sustained€theÏdefendant's€motion€to€dismiss€for€the€state's€failure€to€try€the€case€within€one„hundred„eighty€days€from€his€request€for€trial.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€June€of€1994,€the€defendant,€a€resident€of€Jonesboro,€Arkansas,Ïtook€his€two€sons€and€the€six„year„old€female€victim€to€Libertyland€in€Memphis.€ÏDuring€the€visit,€the€defendant€touched€the€vaginal€area€of€the€victim.€€On€June€27,Ï1994,€at€the€Methodist€Hospital€in€Jonesboro,€a€medical€examination€revealed€noÏsigns€of€trauma€to€the€victim.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€victim,€who€was€wearing€a€dress€at€the€time,€recalled€riding€aÏhorse€on€the€merry„go„round€when€she€received€a€"bad€touch"€from€the€personÏentrusted€to€care€for€her.€€She€used€a€diagram€to€point€out€that€she€had€beenÍtouched€in€the€vaginal€area.€€The€victim€could€not€remember,€however,€who€hadÏtouched€her.€€Lieutenant€B.J.€Smith€of€the€Jonesboro€Police€Department€inÏArkansas€questioned€the€defendant€on€January€20,€1995,€several€months€after€theÏincident.€€The€defendant€identified€the€victim€only€as€Brandy€and€recalled€that€herÏmother€had€been€killed€in€a€car€wreck.€€He€acknowledged€that€Brandy€lived€inÏArkansas€but€that€the€incident€had€occurred€in€Memphis.€€The€defendant€confessedÏto€police€that€he€attempted€to€fondle€the€victim€but€quit€when€she€objected.€ÏAccording€to€Lieutenant€Smith,€the€defendant€explained€that€"my€desires€got€theÏbest€of€me."€€ÌÌà àà àAt€trial,€the€victim's€father,€Darrell€Parker,€acknowledged€that€theÏvictim's€mother€had€been€killed€in€a€car€accident€between€the€time€of€the€offenseÏand€the€interrogation€of€the€defendant€by€the€police.€€ÌÌà àà àThere€was€only€one€defense€witness€called€to€testify.€€The€defendant'sÏson,€James€Garmon,€an€eighth€grader,€recalled€the€trip€to€Libertyland€with€his€olderÏbrother€Joe,€the€young€victim,€and€the€defendant.€€James€could€not€recall€a€timeÏduring€the€entire€day€that€the€defendant€was€alone€with€the€victim.€€On€cross„examination,€however,€the€witness€did€acknowledge€that€there€were€times€duringÏthe€course€of€the€day€when€he€was€outside€of€the€view€of€the€victim.€€ÌÌà@ àIÌà àà àThe€defendant€claims€that€the€state€was€unable€to€offer€enoughÏevidence€to€prove€that€a€crime€had€been€committed.€€He€argues€that€no€witnessÏlinked€the€defendant€with€the€victim,€that€the€hospital€records€did€not€substantiateÏany€unlawful€touching,€and€that€the€victim€was€unable€to€identify€her€assailant.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€òòcorpus€delictióó€of€a€crime€requires€a€showing€that€(1)€a€certainÏresult€has€been€produced,€and€(2)€the€result€was€created€through€a€criminalÏagency.€€òòAshby€v.€Stateóó,€139€S.W.€872€(Tenn.€1911);€òòState€v.€Ervinóó,€731€S.W.2d€70Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1986).€€Whether€the€state€has€sufficiently€established€the€òòcorpusÏdelictióó€is€primarily€a€jury€question.€€òòWilliams€v.€Stateóó,€552€S.W.2d€772€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1977).€€All€elements€of€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€may€be€established€by€circumstantialÏevidence.€€òòClancy€v.€Stateóó,€521€S.W.2d€780€(Tenn.€1975).€€Only€slight€evidence€ofÏthe€òòcorpus€delictióó€is€necessary€to€corroborate€a€confession€and€thus€sustain€aÏconviction.€€òòRicketts€v.€Stateóó,€241€S.W.2d€604€(Tenn.€1951).€€Corroborative€findingsÏmade€in€the€course€of€the€investigation€in€addition€to€the€confession€may€beÏsufficient€to€support€the€conviction.€€òòErvinóó,€731€S.W.2d€at€72.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€state€met€its€burden€of€proof€as€to€the€òòcorpus€delictióó.€ÍòòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wayne€Dillard€Carveróó,€No.€1152€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Aug.Ï1,€1988).€€This€crime€occurred€in€the€summer€of€1994€when€the€victim€was€six€yearsÏold.€€Witnesses€were€able€to€establish€that€the€defendant€had€taken€his€two€sonsÏand€the€victim€to€a€theme€park€in€Memphis€during€that€time.€€There€was€a€merry„go„round€in€the€theme€park.€€While€the€victim€could€not€identify€her€assailant,€theÏdefendant€acknowledged€having€fondled€a€young€girl€from€Jonesboro,€Tennessee,Ïwhose€first€name€matched€that€of€the€victim.€€The€state€was€able€to€corroborate€theÏidentity€of€the€victim€and€the€defendant€by€establishing€that€the€victim's€mother€hadÏbeen€killed€in€a€car€accident€during€the€fall€of€1994,€a€fact€that€the€defendant€hadÏacknowledged€in€his€police€interview.€€"A€confession€may€sustain€a€convictionÏwhere€there€is€other€evidence€sufficient€to€show€the€commission€of€the€crime€byÏsomeone."€€òòTaylor€v.€Stateóó,€479€S.W.2d€659,€661„62€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1972).€ÏHere,€the€victim's€testimony€that€she€œreceived›€a€"bad€œtouch,"›€coupled€with€all€of€theÏother€evidence,€is€sufficient€corroboration€of€the€defendant's€confession.€€òòIdóó.€€TheÏcorroborative€evidence€necessary€to€support€the€òòcorpus€delictióó€need€not€beÏsufficient€in€and€of€itself€but€only€support€"the€essential€facts€...€to€justify€a€juryÏinference€of€their€truth."€€òòOpper€v.€United€Statesóó,€348€U.S.€84,€93€(1954).€€The€stateÏhas€satisfied€that€standard.€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌà àà àThe€defendant€next€complains€that€on€October€2,€1995,€he€filed€aÏrequest€for€trial€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„31„101,€the€Interstate€Compact€onÏDetainers.€€The€request€was€received€by€the€authorities€in€Shelby€County€on€eitherÏOctober€7€or€17.× ƒ5 ××  ×€€A€trial€was€set€on€March€11,€1996,€but€was€continued€becauseÏthe€state€desired€to€amend€its€notice€of€intent€to€seek€an€enhanced€punishment€andÏprovide€notice€of€prior€convictions€to€be€utilized€for€impeachment€purposes.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„202(a)× ƒ6 ××  ×€and€Rule€609(a)(3),× ƒ7 ××  ×€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€€The€trial€wasÍrescheduled€for€April€15,€1996,€some€196€days€after€the€defendant€signed€aÏdocument€requesting€a€trial€in€accordance€with€the€terms€of€the€compact.€€TheÏdefendant€argues€that€the€delay€beyond€one€hundred€eighty€days€was€neitherÏnecessary€nor€reasonable€and€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€enter€an€orderÏof€dismissal.€€Ì€€€Ìà àà àThe€state€insists€that€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€other€than€theÏassertions€of€defense€counsel€to€indicate€that€the€defendant€made€a€request€for€trialÏon€October€2,€1995.€€It€claims€that€the€failure€on€the€part€of€the€defendant€to€includeÏadequate€information€on€this€issue€served€as€a€waiver€for€appellate€purposes.€€òòSeeóóÏRule€24(b),€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.;€òòState€v.€Draperóó,€800€S.W.2d€489,€493€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1990).€€The€assistant€district€attorney€general,€while€acknowledging€that€theÏrequest€for€a€trial€was€dated€October€2,€asserted€that€the€request€was€not€receivedÏuntil€October€17,€1995.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€pointed€out€that€regardless€of€the€date€utilized€toÏmeasure€the€one€hundred€eighty€days,€all€Shelby€County€courts€were€closed€onÏApril€5,€1996,€a€state€holiday,€and€the€entire€week€beginning€Monday,€April€8€for€theÍspring€session€of€the€Tennessee€Judicial€Conference.€€The€trial€began€on€theÏfollowing€Monday.€€While€implying€that€the€delay€was€necessary,€the€trial€judgeÏruled€that€the€one€hundred€eighty€days€was€mainly€a€guideline€and€that€the€stateÏhad€acted€in€good€faith€in€attempting€to€set€a€trial€as€early€as€possible.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€primary€purpose€of€the€Interstate€Compact€is€to€provide€anÏexpedient,€orderly€disposition€of€the€out„of„state€charge€upon€which€a€detainer€isÏbased.€€òòDillon€v.€Stateóó,€844€S.W.2d€139€(Tenn.€1992).€€The€compact€seeks€toÏensure€that€detainers€are€filed€only€when€substantial€grounds€exist€for€bringing€theÏprisoner€to€trial€in€another€jurisdiction.€€òòState€v.€Hillóó,€875€S.W.2d€278€(Tenn.€Crim.ÏApp.€1993).€€The€compact€procedure€results€in€only€a€temporary€transfer€to€theÏreceiving€state.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Young€v.€Roseóó,€670€S.W.2d€238€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1984).€€ÌÌà àà àThe€provisions€of€the€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers€are€to€beÏconstrued€liberally€in€favor€of€prisoners€it€was€intended€to€benefit.€€òòState€v.€Gipsonóó,Ï670€S.W.2d€637€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984).€€The€provisions€of€the€compact€are,Ïhowever,€statutory€rights,€not€fundamental,€constitutional,€or€jurisdictional.€€òòGrizzellÏv.€Tennesseeóó,€601€F.€œSupp.€230›€(M.D.€Tenn.€1984).€€Failure€to€comply€with€the€one„Ïhundred„eighty„day€time€limit€does€not€automatically€require€a€dismissal€of€theÍindictment€if€a€continuance€beyond€that€period€is€necessary€or€reasonable.€ÏòòGipsonóó,€670€S.W.2d€at€639.€€This€court€has€held€that€a€crowded€docket€was€not€aÏnecessary€or€reasonable€ground€for€continuance€and€set€aside€the€indictment.€€òòId.óó€ÏNegligence€on€the€part€of€the€state€does€not€constitute€good€cause€for€delay.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Greenóó,€680€S.W.2d€474€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€òòoverruled€on€otherÏgroundsóó,€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€774€S.W.2d€590€(Tenn.€1989).€€A€continuance€granted€exÏparte€has€no€tolling€effect.€€òòDillonóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€142.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€compact€between€the€states€provides€in€part€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àWhenever€a€person€has€entered€upon€a€term€ofÏimprisonment€in€a€penal€or€correctional€institution€of€aÏparty€state,€and€whenever€during€the€continuance€of€theÏterm€of€imprisonment€there€is€pending€in€any€other€partyÏstate€any€untried€indictment,€information€or€complaint€onÏthe€basis€of€which€a€detainer€has€been€lodged€againstÏthe€prisoner,€the€person€shall€be€brought€to€trial€within€€€Ïòòone€hundred€eighty€days€after€having€caused€to€beÏdelivered€to€the€prosecuting€officer€and€the€appropriateÏcourt€of€the€prosecuting€officer's€jurisdictionóó,€writtenÏnotice€of€the€place€of€the€person's€imprisonment€andÏrequest€for€a€final€disposition€to€be€made€of€theÏindictment,€information€or€complaint;€provided,€that€forÏgood€cause€shown€in€open€court,€the€prisoner€or€theÏprisoner's€counsel€being€present,€the€court€havingÏjurisdiction€of€the€matter€may€grant€any€necessary€orÏreasonable€continuance.€€ÌÌTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„31„101,€art.€III€(a)€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àBy€our€calculations,€the€one€hundred€eighty€days€would€have€expiredÏby€March€30,€1996,€if€the€time€is€calculated€from€the€defendant's€claimed€date€of€hisÏrequest€for€trial.€€The€plain€terms€of€the€compact,€however,€require€a€trial€within€"oneÏhundred€eighty€days€òòafter€having€caused€to€be€delivered€toóó€the€prosecuting€officerÏand€the€appropriate€court€of€the€prosecuting€officer's€jurisdiction€written€notice€ofÏthe€person's€imprisonment€and€request€for€a€final€disposition...."€€Our€supreme€courtÏhas€held€that€the€one„hundred„eighty€day€period€does€not€begin€to€run€until€theÏstate€and€the€court€have€received€the€petition.€€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€774€S.W.2d€590,Ï593€(Tenn.€1989).ÌÌà àà àThe€record€suggests€the€state€received€the€petition€on€either€OctoberÏ7,€1995,€or€October€17,€1995.€€Regardless€of€which€day€the€state€received€theÏpetition,€the€defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief.ÌÌà àà àIf€the€petition€was€received€on€October€17,€1995,€the€trial€should€haveÏbegun€on€April€14,€1996,€in€order€to€comply€with€the€one€hundred€eighty„dayÏlimitation.€€Because,€however,€April€14€was€a€Sunday,€and€the€trial€wasÏcommenced€on€Monday,€April€15,€the€rule€was€not€violated.€€In€òòUnited€States€v.ÍJohnsonóó,€953€F.2d€1167€(9th€Cir.€1992),€the€state€argued€that€because€the€one„hundred„eightieth€day€fell€on€a€Sunday,€the€Federal€Rules€of€Criminal€ProcedureÏallowed€for€timely€commencement€of€the€trial€on€Monday.€€The€Ninth€Circuit€agreed:Ï"States€party€to€the€Interstate€Detainers€Act€have€used€local€time€computingÏprovisions€analogous€to€Fed.€R.€Crim.€P.€45(a)€to€extend€the€180€day€limit€when€theÏ180th€day€is€a€Saturday,€Sunday,€or€legal€holiday."€€òòId.óó€at€1172€(footnote€omitted).€ÏAccordingly,€we€look€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€45(a)€for€guidance:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓTime.„„(a)€Computation.„„In€computing€any€period€ofÏtime€the€day€of€the€act€or€event€from€which€theÏdesignated€period€of€time€begins€to€run€shall€not€beÏincluded.€€The€last€day€of€the€period€so€computed€shallÏbe€included€unless€it€is€a€Saturday,€Sunday,€or€a€legalÏholiday,€...€in€which€event€the€period€runs€until€the€end€ofÏthe€next€day€which€is€not€a€Saturday,€a€Sunday,€or€aÏlegal€holiday€....ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àEven€if€the€state€had€received€the€petition€ten€days€earlier,€theÏdefendant€could€not€prevail.€€A€failure€to€object€to€the€date€for€a€trial€set€beyond€theÏone„hundred„eighty„day€period€precluded€an€application€for€discharge€under€theÏcompact.€€òòState€v.€Suarezóó,€681€S.W.2d€584€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984),€òòoverruled€onÏother€groundsóó,€òòState€v.€Mooreóó,€774€S.W.2d€590€(Tenn.€1989).× ƒ8 ××  ×€€In€òòSuarezóó,€theÍdefendant€raised€the€issue€for€the€first€time€on€direct€appeal€of€his€armed€robberyÏconvictions.€€The€court€rejected€his€claim:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[W]e€hold€that€the€defendant's€failure€to€object€to€the€trialÏdate€at€the€time€it€was€set€or€during€the€remainder€of€theÏ180„day€period€resulted€in€waiver€of€his€rights€underÏArticle€III€of€the€Interstate€Compact€on€Detainers.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓòòSuarezóó,€681€S.W.2d€at€586.€€Here,€defense€counsel€from€all€appearances€agreedÏto€reschedule€the€trial€and€did€not€mention€the€violation€of€the€Interstate€CompactÏon€Detainers€until€after€the€time€for€compliance€had€passed.€€That€would€constituteÏa€waiver.€€òòId.óó€€Federal€law€governs€the€interpretation€of€the€Interstate€Compact€onÏDetainers€Act.€€òòCuyler€v.€Adamsóó,€449€U.S.€433€(1981).€€The€federal€courts€haveÏheld€that€rights€under€the€compact€can€be€waived.€€òòKowalak€v.€United€Statesóó,€645ÏF.2d€534€(6th€Cir.€1981).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòBrown€v.€Wolfeóó,€706€F.2d€902,€903„04€(9th€Cir.Ï1983).€€€Ìà àà àMoreover,€it€would€appear€that€the€trial€had€been€set€for€March€11,Ï1996,€well€within€the€one„hundred€eighty„day€period€and€was€continued€for€goodÏand€necessary€reasons,€much€to€the€benefit€of€the€defendant,€when€the€state€filedÏits€March€6,€1996,€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€and€utilize€priorÏconvictions€for€impeachment€purposes.€€That€there€was€no€criminal€court€in€ShelbyÍCounty€from€April€5€through€April€14,€1996,€indicates€a€good€faith€effort€on€allÏinvolved€to€meet€the€primary€purpose€of€the€compact;€that€is,€to€provide€anÏexpedient,€orderly€disposition€of€state€charges€outside€of€Arkansas.€€ÌÌÑ ° ÑÑ X Ñœà àà àIn›€pretrial€argument,€defense€counsel€acknowledged€that€theÏcontinuance,€due€to€an€amended€notice€to€include€a€1973€Kansas€conviction,Ïultimately€benefitted€the€defendant.€€It€allowed€her€time€to€determine€that€theÏconviction€had€been€overturned€on€appeal€and€thus€limit€the€sentence€to€a€Range€I.€ÏDefense€counsel€made€this€further€comment:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àI€am€obligated,€of€course,€to€present€all€the€law€that€I€feelÏis€against€my€position,€and€that€because€of€...€necessaryÏdelays„„the€fact€that€there€were€no€courts€open€lastÏweek„„the€Friday€before€that€was€a€holiday„„and€that€allÏthe€delays„„all€the€continuances,€with€the€exception€ofÏfrom€March€11€until€today€was€based€on€the€state;€that€itÏappears€from€my€reading€of€the€law€that€òòwe€are€stillÏwithin€our€one€hundred€eighty€daysóó.€€ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€The€defense€then€conceded€that€it€had€sought€a€delay€fromÏJanuary€9€through€February€1,€1996.€€The€speedy€trial€provisions€of€the€Act€areÏtolled€by€delay€"occasioned€by€the€defendant."€€òòDillonóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€142€(citationsÌomitted).€€Typically,€delays€at€the€hands€of€the€defendant€would€fall€into€theÏcategory€of€reasonable€and€necessary.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Tysonóó,€603€S.W.2d€748Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980);€òòDillonóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€142.€€Ìà àÌà àà àWe€hold€that€the€record€is€inadequate€for€us€to€determine€that€the€timeÏbegan€to€run€before€October€17,€1995;€if€it€did,€the€trial€was€timely€commenced.€€It€isÏthe€obligation€of€the€appellant€to€provide€an€adequate€record€for€the€disposition€ofÏan€issue€on€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€24(b).€€In€this€instance,€we€cannot€accuratelyÍassess€the€number€of€days€without€further€documentation€from€the€trial€court€as€toÏwhen€the€request€was€received.€€Had€the€notice€been€received€on€October€7,€1995,Ïwe€would€have€nevertheless€concluded€that€the€continuance€of€the€trial€from€theÏMarch€11,€1996,€setting€was€reasonable€and€necessary€and€much€to€the€benefit€ofÏthe€defendant.€€Certainly,€the€purposes€of€the€compact€were€not€abridged€by€theÏdevelopments€in€this€case.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€œaffirmed.ÌÌÓÓ›à àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€Judge€ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌDavid€G.€Hayes,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌJoe€G.€Riley,€Judge€