ÿWPCr uk7%Në7˜…¼6À òÜ\ç§c™Ù+U ìàÖNkÁ„r ó›G‰F²eáütí;–“FÀXª.ð°c>E±vO=i$8gâ]h«[ÕÛØH¤,P‰ûãºÇ[×0Žñj.·¾>ë Ád|n–z|œ)²;:ñSʪIôsNHúûÄ>¯MJ&ý£S%6Øži·­»”ô*Tÿ|ÒÝwk#xFsŠ,“2Å,¹EZï›ÅŸ^ɇ%ðÂÎâl={à¿W ¼¡‹Ô’ Y#Xð”=ä[œ6¶¬²/,žüÖ÷ 2û’úWJ Ì"dE–/Ô)B+GúR1wu=’n´þ'ÛÆ¶zÒÆH§82¢C† ýFŠçf‚#–>°ê ®šÚþàne]c&ûÄZ¿˜EÑ"—¤—8‹ ?µë¾ '”è~O¶Ó Qõ¡°îñ/œBÝ— ; nŸu0+5ÜsœïrdÁ42ï‘÷°ët–€ßíWUk§µ-þTÈ9¯õ¨ ÑE÷‘öƒe𧤠NðTBþ´ Sä¥p>ÿŸØ»b pÊfS/PқȂLŽƒ¶5{èvPöL@ÖÉ𠎺©BÓ"kífN±R5ïÝ|#üʱì¡bUN\ %ª 0ˆ°^ 8wD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1P÷NGIIEQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQbSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 0D[[[[[µŸ 0ëTTT? BZZ 0¤w D3 D-N 0K{{ ASÆÆ 0¤ß 0Dƒ A«Ç(ÈhH  Z6Times New Roman Regular»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Óí©“+â yG*Ø™¨œ¦3|x ˜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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 FÝ ƒRKˆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôšìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAt€trial€the€Appellant€acknowledged€that€the€State€sent€him€a€form€requesting€proof€of€insurance€and€that€heÐ ° Ðintentionally€chose€not€to€complete€the€form€or€return€it€to€the€State. - ù-(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó «Ý ƒRKˆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôšìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔBut€for€a€statute€of€limitations€bar,€double€jeopardy€principles€would€not€prohibit€subsequent€prosecution€ofÐ ° Ðthe€Appellant€for€driving€on€a€òòsuspended€óólicense€because€the€Appellant€was€never€charged€with€or€tried€for€driving€onÐ tÄ Ða€òòsuspended€óólicense.€(|G2Kˆ$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€(”»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôšìò»»Ô Ý ƒRKˆ$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôšìò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„13„206€(1997),€permits€an€indictment€to€allege€alternatively€within€the€sameÐ ° Ðcount€an€offense,€which€can€be€committed€by€different€forms,€by€different€means,€or€with€different€intents.€€However,Ð tÄ Ðthe€indictment€in€the€present€case€does€not€charge€all€three€forms€or€means€of€committing€the€offense€of€driving€on€aÐ 8ˆ Ðrevoked€license.€€The€State€would€have€been€authorized€to€prove€any€of€the€three€forms€or€means,€but€this€statute€is€notÐ üL Ðapplicable€because€the€State€chose€to€proceed€on€the€specific€charge€of€driving€on€aòò€revokedóó€license.€€€€€ d(|3‡j$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€(”»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‡j$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€(”»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€(”»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼(”»»»ÔÑ8€dèXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡î&e(”ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼(”»îî&e #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€October€30,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XdèX»¼(”ÔÌò òÔ#†¼(”»XXdè!#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€BOBBY€GENE€Ô_ÔGOODSONÔ_ÔòòóóÔ‡XdèX»¼(”Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Sullivan€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€S43,933€€€€€€R.€Jerry€Beck,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00057„CCA„R3„CDÐ ¥õ  ÐDecember€19,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡ XdèXXXdèÔThe€Appellant,€Bobby€Gene€Ô_ÔGoodsonÔ_Ô,€appeals€his€conviction€by€a€Sullivan€County€jury€of€drivingÐ xÈ  Ðon€a€revoked€license,€in€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1)€(1998).€€OnÐ d´ Ðappeal,€Ô_ÔGoodsonÔ_Ô€challenges€his€conviction€contending€that:€€(1)€the€State€is€without€authority€toÐ P  Ðregulate€his€right€to€travel;€(2)€the€trial€court€was€without€jurisdiction€to€try€him;€(3)€he€was€notÐ <Œ Ðafforded€a€speedy€trial;€and€(4)€the€evidence€in€the€record€is€insufficient€as€a€matter€of€law€to€sustainÐ (x Ðhis€conviction.€€After€a€review€of€the€record,€we€find€issues€(1),€(2),€and€(3)€are€without€merit.€€WithÐ d Ðregard€to€issue€(4),€we€find€the€indicted€offense,€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€impermissibly€variedÐ P Ðfrom€the€proof€at€trial,€which€established€the€separate€offense€of€driving€on€a€suspended€license.€Ð ì< ÐTherefore,€Ô_ÔGoodsonÔ_Ôððs€conviction€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€is€reversed.Ð Ø( ÐÔ#†XdèXX Xdèù#ÔÔ#†¼(”»XXdè»#ÔÔ‡XdèX»¼(”ÔÓíÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€is€Reversed.ó óÐ ° ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼(”»àXdèç #ÔÔ‡XdèX.¼(”ÔDavid€G.€Hayes,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,óó€andÐ ˆØ ÐòòJohn€Everett€Williams,€JóóJ.,€joined.Ð tÄ ÐÌWilliam€A.€Kennedy,€Ô_ÔBlountvilleÔ_Ô,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€Bobby€Gene€Ô_ÔGoodsonÔ_Ô.Ð L œ ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Ô_ÔAngeleÔ_Ô€M.Ð $"t! ÐGregory,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€and€B.€Todd€Martin,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€forÐ #`" Ðthe€Appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð ü#L# ÐÔ#†¼(”»XXdè¤ #ÔÔ‡XdèX»¼(”ÔÌÓu ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼(”»XXdèÄ #ÔÔ‡XdèX»¼(”ÔÐ À&"& ÐÌò òFactual€Backgroundó óÐ ˜(è#( ÐòòóóÔ#†¼(”»XXdè7#ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XdèX»¼(”ÔÌÌÔ‡ XdèXXXdèÔà  àOn€July€23,€1999,€the€Appellant€appeared€at€the€Sullivan€County€Criminal€Court€for€aÐ \+¬&+ Ðscheduled€court€proceeding.€€As€the€Appellant€was€leaving€the€courthouse,€he€was€observed€by€CourtÐ H,˜', ÐOfficer€Tim€Duncan€getting€into€his€car€and€ð ðÔ_Ôpull[ingÔ_Ô]€out€into€the€highway.ðð€€Duncan,€having€ð ðpriorÐ 4-„(-ýÈ ÐÔ_Ôknowledge€that€Goodson€did€not€have€a€valid€Tennessee€driverððs€license,ðð€informed€dispatch€of€thisÐ ° Ðfact.€€Officer€Robert€Dooley€was€then€contacted€and€advised€of€the€situation.€€Upon€locating€theÐ œì Ðdescribed€vehicle,€the€Appellant€was€then€pulled€over€by€the€officer.€€When€Officer€DooleyÐ ˆØ Ðapproached€the€vehicle,€the€Appellant€produced€a€photocopy€of€his€Tennessee€driverððs€license,€andÐ tÄ Ðstated€that€he€had€a€right€to€travel€without€a€driverððs€license.€€Officer€Dooley€testified,€he€ð ðran€theÐ `° Ðnumber€which€was€on€the€ð!ð€the€photocopy,€the€Tennessee€license€number,ððand€was€advised€that€theÐ L œ ÐAppellantððs€license€had€been€suspended.€€The€Appellant€was€then€charged€with€driving€on€aÐ 8 ˆ Ðsuspended€license.€€On€€September€8,€1999,€the€Appellant€was€indicted€for€driving€on€a€revokedÐ $ t Ðlicense.€€After€a€trial€by€jury,€the€Appellant€was€found€guilty€and€was€sentenced€to€six€monthsÐ  ` Ðunsupervised€probation,€to€be€served€consecutively€to€other€outstanding€traffic€offense€convictions.€Ð ü L  ÐÌò òÓ  ÓANALYSISÐ Ô$  Ðó óÌÓ  Óò òI.€€Right€to€Travel.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àó óThe€Appellant€first€contends€that€he€has€a€constitutional€right€to€travel,€and€the€State€ofÐ „Ô  ÐTennessee€impermissibly€interferes€with€that€right€by€requiring€licensure.€€At€trial,€the€AppellantÐ pÀ Ðtestified€he€was€ð ðtraveling€by€right.ðð€€In€òòState€v.€Booheróó,€978€S.W.2d€953,€956€(Tenn.€Crim€App.Ð \¬ Ð1997),€this€court€held,€ð ðour€[S]tate€legislature€may€properly€within€the€scope€of€its€police€powerÐ H˜ Ðenact€reasonable€regulations€requiring€licensing€and€registration€of€motor€vehicles€as€it€furthers€theÐ 4„ Ðinterests€of€public€safety€and€welfare.ðð€€The€court€reasoned,€Ð  p ÐÌà8  à[T]he€ability€to€drive€a€motor€vehicle€on€a€public€highway€is€òònotóó€a€fundamental€right.€Ð øH ÐòòóóInstead,€it€is€a€revocable€ð ðprivilegeðð€that€is€granted€upon€compliance€with€statutoryÐ ä4 Ðlicensing€procedures.€ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àÌà8  àState€and€local€governments€possess€an€inherent€power,€òòi.e.óó€police€power,€to€enactÐ ¨ø Ðreasonable€legislation€for€the€health,€safety,€welfare,€morals,€or€convenience€of€theÐ ”ä Ðpublic.€€Thus,€our€legislature,€through€its€police€power,€may€prescribe€conditionsÐ €Ð Ðunder€which€the€ð ðprivilegeðð€of€operating€automobiles€on€public€highways€may€beÐ l¼ Ðexercised.€€òòÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌId.€óó(citations€omitted).€€òòóóWe€remain€unpersuaded€that€the€rationale€of€òòBooheróó€should€be€rejected.€Ð 0"€  ÐòòóóTherefore,€this€issue€is€without€merit.ò òÐ #l! ÐÌII.€€Lack€of€Jurisdiction.Ð ô$D # Ðó óÌà  àSecond,€the€Appellant€asserts€that€ð ðthe€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€over€him.ðð€€Specifically,Ð Ì&"% Ðthe€Appellant€argues,€in€his€Motion€and€Demand€to€Dismiss€for€Lack€of€Jurisdiction,€that€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àBobby€Gene€Goodson€being€one€of€the€holders€of€the€inherent€political€power,Ð )à$( ÐMotion€and€Demand€that€case€no.€S43,033€be€dismissed€for€lack€of€constitutionalÐ |*Ì%) Ðjurisdiction.€€ð ðWe€The€Peopleðð€did€not€give€the€STATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€INC.€anyÐ h+¸&* Ðauthority€to€make€legislated€color€of€law€codes€in€violation€of€the€Constitution€of€theÐ ° ÐUnited€States€of€America€of€1781€and€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee.ò òМìÐ Ð  ÐÌó óThe€Appellant€cites€no€authority€or€principle€of€law€which€supports€this€argument.€€In€òòBooher,€óóthisÐ tÄ Ðcourtòòóó€rejected€the€argument€that€an€appellant€ð ðis€exempt€from€the€laws€of€this€State€because€he€hasÐ `° Ðnever€consented€to€nor€granted€the€State€the€authority€to€try€him€for€criminal€acts€or€omissions.ðð€€òòId.Ð L œ Ðóóat€957.€€The€Appellant,€in€the€present€case,€was€charged€with€driving€on€a€revoked€license,€a€classÐ 8 ˆ ÐB€misdemeanor.€€ð ðThe€circuit€court€has€exclusive€original€jurisdiction€of€all€crimes€andÐ $ t Ðmisdemeanors,€whether€at€common€law€or€by€statute,€unless€expressly€provided€by€statute€or€thisÐ  ` ÐCode.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„10„102€€(1994).€€The€facts€are€abundantly€clear€that€the€SullivanÐ ü L  ÐCounty€Criminal€Court€had€both€subject€matter€jurisdiction€and€personal€jurisdiction€to€try€theÐ è 8  ÐAppellant€for€the€commission€of€the€charged€offense.€€The€Appellant€is€not€exempt€from€the€lawsÐ Ô$  Ðof€this€state.€€€€€€€€€ò òÐ À  ÐÌIII.€€Speedy€Trial.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àó óThe€Appellant€next€argues€that€he€was€not€afforded€a€speedy€trialò ò€ó óbecause€ð ðit€took€almost€aÐ pÀ Ðfull€year€to€get€a€minor€traffic€offense€to€trial.ðð€€The€Appellant€was€arrested€on€July€23,€1999,€andÐ `° Ðhis€trial€was€held€on€July€12,€2000.€€The€delay€was€just€less€than€one€year.€€A€mere€lapse€of€time,Ð Lœ Ðabsent€more,€does€not€constitute€a€denial€of€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2dÐ 8ˆ Ð81,€84€(Tenn.€1973);€òòState€v.€Ensleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€502,€509€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996),€òòperm.€to€appealÐ $t Ðdeniedóó,€(Tenn.1997).€€The€Appellant€asserts€that€he€was€prejudiced€because€his€reputation€wasÐ ` Ðimpugned€as€a€result€of€the€delay.€€The€record€is€void,€however,€as€to€any€proof€of€damage€to€theÐ üL ÐAppellantððs€reputation.€€Furthermore,€we€find€that€a€large€portion€of€the€delay€was€caused€by€theÐ è8 ÐAppellant.Ð Ô$ Ѐ€Ð À Ðà  àIn€òòBishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€at€84,€our€supreme€court€adopted€the€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,Ð ¬ü Ð530,€92€S.€Ct.€2182,€2192,€(1972),€four„part€balancing€test€to€determine€whether€the€right€to€a€speedyÐ ˜è Ðtrial€has€been€abridged.€€If€the€length€of€the€delay€is€not€presumptively€prejudicial,€the€otherÐ „Ô Ðbalancing€factors€need€not€be€considered.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192.€€A€delay€of€oneÐ pÀ Ðyear€or€longer€"marks€the€point€at€which€courts€deem€the€delay€unreasonable€enough€to€trigger€theÐ \ ¬ ÐòòBarkeróó€inquiry."€€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€652,€112€S.€Ct.€2686,€2691,€n.€1€(1992).€Ð H!˜ ÐBecause€we€find€the€alleged€delay€was€not€presumptively€prejudicial,€we€conclude€the€Appellant€wasÐ 4"„  Ðnot€denied€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.Ð  #p! ÐÌò òIV.€€Proof€of€the€Convicted€Offense.ó óÐ ø$H # ÐÌà  àFinally,€the€Appellant€contends€the€evidence€was€insufficient€to€establish€that€he€was€drivingÐ Ð& "% Ðon€a€revoked€license.€€Although€the€Appellantððs€challenge€to€his€conviction€is€raised€within€aÐ ¼' #& Ðð ðsufficiencyðð€argument,€it€is€clear€that€this€argument€is€predicated€upon€grounds€that€the€proof€at€trialÐ ¨(ø#' Ðwas€insufficient€because€it€varied€fatally€from€the€offense€alleged€in€the€indictment.€€On€appeal,€theÐ ”)ä$( ÐAppellant€argues,Ð €*Ð%) ÐÐ l+¼&* Ðà8  à[T]he€certified€driving€history€presented€at€trial€by€the€State€indicates€that€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€was€not€ð ðrevoked,ðð€but€was€ð ðsuspended.ðð€.€.€.€The€statute€clearly€sets€outÐ œì Ðthree€separate€offenses€by€making€it€a€criminal€offense€to€operate€a€motor€vehicleÐ ˆØ Ðwhen€a€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€is€ð ðcancelled,€suspended€or€revoked.ðð€.€.€.€€The€useÐ tÄ Ðof€the€conjunction€ð ðorðð€makes€it€clear€that€the€State€has€a€choice€to€make€in€indictingÐ `° Ða€defendant.€€In€the€instant€case,€the€State€placed€into€evidence€proof€that€theÐ L œ Ðdefendant€committed€the€offense€of€driving€on€a€suspended€license,€but€no€evidenceÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€the€defendant€committed€the€offense€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license.Ð$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌIn€response,€the€State€concedes€ð ðthat€it€is€difficult€to€tell€whether€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504Ð ü L  Ðintends€to€distinguish€the€three€offenses,ðð€nonetheless,€it€argues€that€the€three€terms,€òòi.e.óó,€cancelled,Ð è 8  Ðsuspended€or€revoked,€are€interchangeable.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àIn€order€to€satisfy€constitutional€requirements,€an€indictment€must€provide€the€defendant€withÐ ¬ü  Ðnotice€of€the€offense€charged,€provide€the€court€with€an€adequate€ground€upon€which€a€judgmentÐ ˜è  Ðmay€be€entered,€and€provide€the€defendant€with€protection€against€double€jeopardy.׃Q×Ý ƒL#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòState€v.€Byrdóó,Ð „Ô  Ð820€S.W.2d€739,€741€(Tenn.€1991).€€€Inherent€within€these€functions€is€the€due€process€guaranteeÐ pÀ Ðthat€the€indictment€provide€the€accused€a€fair€opportunity€to€defend€against€the€judgment.€€òòState€v.Ð \¬ ÐTrustyóó,€919€S.W.2d€305,€309€(Tenn.€1996),€òòoverruled€on€other€groundsóó,€òòState€v.€Jett,€óóNo.€01C01„Ð H˜ Ð9707„CR„00236€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Sept.€10,€1998);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Marshallóó,€870Ð 4„ ÐS.W.2d€532,€537€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€Ð  p ÐÌà8  àHaving€the€right€to€be€informed€of€the€criminal€charge€that€he€or€she€is€to€meet€atÐ øH Ðtrial,€the€accused€cannot€be€tried€for€or€convicted€of€an€offense€not€charged€in€theÐ ä4 Ðindictment€or€information.€€Put€simply,€not€only€must€the€government€prove€theÐ Ð  Ðcrime€it€charges,€it€must€charge€the€crime€it€proves.€Ð¼ Ð Ð  ÐÌ41€òòAm.€Juróó.€2d€òòIndictments€and€Informationsóó€ðð€258€(1995);€òòsee€also€State€v.€Clevelandóó,€959€S.W.2dÐ ”ä Ð548,€552€(Tenn.€1997)€(a€defendant€cannot€legally€be€convicted€of€an€offense€which€is€not€chargedÐ €Ð Ðin€the€indictment€or€which€is€not€a€lesser€offense€embraced€in€the€indictment).€€Moreover,€after€anÐ l¼ Ðindictment€has€been€returned,€its€charge€may€not€be€broadened€or€changed€except€by€action€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðgrand€jury.€€U.S.€Const.€amend.€V;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€sec.€14;€òòUnited€States€v.€Milleróó,€471€U.S.€130,Ð D!” Ð148,€105€S.Ct.€1811,€1820€(1985);€òòStirone€€v.€United€Statesóó,€361€U.S.€212,€215,€80€S.Ct.€270,€272Ð 0"€  Ð(1960).€€In€further€explanation€of€òòStironeóó,€the€court€in€òòU.S.€v.€Adamsóó,€778€F.2d€1117,€1123€(5òòthóó€Cir.Ð #l! Ð1985),€observed:Ð $X" ÐÌà8  àòòStironeóó€requires€that€courts€distinguish€between€constructive€amendments€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðindictment,€which€are€reversible€òòper€seóó,€and€variances€between€indictment€and€proof,Ð Ì&"% Ðwhich€are€evaluated€under€the€harmless€error€doctrine.€€The€accepted€test€is€that€aÐ ¸'#& Ðconstructive€amendment€of€the€indictment€occurs€when€the€jury€is€permitted€toÐ ° Ðconvict€the€defendant€upon€a€factual€basis€that€effectively€modifies€an€essentialÐ œì Ðelement€of€the€offense€charged.€.€.€.€€In€such€cases,€reversal€is€automatic,€because€theÐ ˆØ Ðdefendant€may€have€been€convicted€on€a€ground€not€charged€in€the€indictment.€.€.€.€Ð tÄ ÐIf,€on€the€other€hand,€the€variation€between€proof€and€indictment€does€not€effectivelyÐ `° Ðmodify€an€essential€element€of€the€offense€charged,€ð ðthe€trial€courtððs€refusal€toÐ L œ Ðrestrict€the€jury€charge€to€the€words€of€the€indictment€is€merely€another€of€the€flawsÐ 8 ˆ Ðin€trial€that€mar€its€perfection€but€do€not€prejudice€the€defendant.ððÐ$ tÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€Appellant€was€indicted€for€and€convicted€of€driving€on€a€revoked€license€in€violation€ofÐ ü L  Ððð€55„50„504(a)(1)€(1998).€€Section€55„50„504,€makes€it€a€crime€for€any€person€to€drive€a€motorÐ è 8  Ðvehicle€on€any€public€highway€of€this€State€at€a€time€when€the€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€isÐ Ô$  Ðcancelled,€suspended,€or€revoked.€€This€offense€may€be€committed€by€three€different€means.€Ð À  ÐMoreover,€we€find€that€driving€on€a€(1)€cancelled,€(2)€suspended,€or€(3)€revoked€license€constitutesÐ ¬ü  Ðseparate€and€distinct€offenses.׃U×Ý ƒL#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Appellant€wasòò€óóindicted€for€driving€on€a€òòrevokedóó€license.€Ð ˜è  ÐHowever,€the€proof€at€trial€showed€that€the€Appellant€was€driving€on€a€òòsuspendedóó€license€for€ð ðfailureÐ „Ô  Ðto€file€insurance€after€conviction.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„12„115€(1998).׃d×Ý ƒL#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àDespite€the€fact€that€€the€words€ð ðsuspendedðð€and€ð ðrevokedðð€are€often€used€interchangeably,Ð H˜ Ðthey€have€different€meanings€as€provided€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€55„50„102€(42),€(47)Ð 4„ Ð(1998):€Ð  p Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àð ðRevocation€of€driver€licenseðð€means€the€termination€by€formal€action€of€theÐ øH Ðdepartment€of€a€person's€driver€license€or€privilege€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€on€theÐ ä4 Ðpublic€highways,€which€termination€shall€not€be€subject€to€renewal€or€restorationÐ Ð  Ðexcept€that€an€application€for€a€new€license€may€be€presented€and€acted€upon€by€theÐ ¼  Ðdepartment€after€the€expiration€of€at€least€one€(1)€year€after€date€of€revocation.ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌà8  àð ðSuspension€of€driver€licenseðð€means€the€temporary€withdrawal€by€formal€action€ofÐ €Ð Ðthe€department€of€a€person's€driver€license€or€privilege€to€operate€a€motor€vehicle€onÐ l¼ Ðthe€public€highways,€which€temporary€withdrawal€shall€be€for€a€period€specificallyÐ X ¨ Ðdesignated€by€the€department.ÐD!”Ð Ð  ЀÌÓÓòòSee€also€State€v.€Swanóó,€No.€M2000„00539„CCA„R3„CD€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,€Apr.€27,Ð #l! Ð2001)ÓÓ.€€The€proof€introduced€at€trial€regarding€the€Appellantððs€suspended€driving€status€constitutedÐ $X" Ða€constructive€amendment€of€the€indictment€by€broadening€the€grounds€for€conviction.€€ð ðThe€rightÐ ° Ðto€have€the€grand€jury€make€the€charge€on€its€own€judgment€is€a€substantial€right€which€cannot€beÐ œì Ðtaken€away€with€or€without€court€amendment.ðð€€òòStironeóó,€361€U.S.€at€218„19,€80€S.Ct.€at€273„74.€€ForÐ ˆØ Ðthis€reason,€we€conclude€that€the€constructive€amendment€of€the€indictment€infringed€upon€theÐ tÄ ÐAppellantððs€ð ðright€to€have€the€grand€jury€make€the€charge,ðð€thus€resulting€in€reversible€error.Ð `° ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òCONCLUSIONó óÐ $ t ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àWe€find€that€driving€on€a€revoked€license€is€a€separate€and€distinct€offense€from€that€ofÐ ü L  Ðdriving€on€a€suspended€license.€€As€such,€we€conclude€that€a€constructive€amendment€of€theÐ è 8  Ðindictment€occurred€because€the€jury€was€permitted€to€convict€for€an€offense€different€from€thatÐ Ô$  Ðwhich€was€charged€or€included€within€the€charging€instrument.€€For€this€reason,€the€AppellantððsÐ À  Ðconviction€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€is€reversed.Ô#†XdèXX Xdèï#ÔÐ ¬ü  ÐÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð H˜ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JUDGE