ÿWPCÑ 8ŒiÛ#ÂK%²(—U+Å$Š¦[ÔÒö3ô^yâ+§ÞµÆËr©¾Mîp;OºxîyûÙ ŒÇ±„ÛvIO­Ñ|3ä;îk¼&[!ùBH8a!ˆ…D@nt­Wg¿¹Bl9},à°Ì9Œº ËʮۖGÚW©¦¤öBSËcÍ2ÂÉPhÑP‰íõšE³æò!ˆÂ@Ž®AÎUþÛœ:g<ø„B"†<úWð+ß±0"\ÙÉvµ3(Ú'ÿ¦¯ÒñEMíKTÈ(l1—Ðÿ}ö»”‘=øX}hðh%w‘»šMéJ‡'Æõ×]y…yÍbÀM´ÈyzæÜSˆv§¥üÏ´Ãïq ÆÄ ÜZ(ÜׯÄÿ³,¸ UÉÌ žHCÍÐÚ¨"ü¨G%ÔG8ä jt%^Çj–² ÄQc¾ÍØSUh)îfÁV¤%ó…HÝ_ü•eqýI€wÀœ~©ê7±Ë¬˜'.j­?½yaºb’õî¢wîp§|Ðkæ+Э\ó‘põ£Ôr*î-YÓ¿TPó)‘Þ8= ðMÍÀ‘²vÞ i¦´‡—+{žxÐM¨¸hûGœl˜£™ø×ff¯«Y¬85®š± ‹èûÌȉ}íßój"zb#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ‘ Ƨ Æm Æ3 Æù ¿NÇÇÇEÉ·ËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËËË 0D‚‚‚‚bÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆÆ 0ëÎÎÎÎ B¹¹ 0¤Ö D3z D-­ 0KÚÚ AS%Æx 0¤> 0Dâ A«&˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»ou‹-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular3j1, ¡bk(¨ ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ñ ° ÑLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  ­Ý ƒRÅM$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûUò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€also€note€that€the€standard€of€review€for€a€trial€courtððs€decision€to€dismiss€an€indictment€„€which€is€theÐ ° Ðremedy€for€a€successful€claim€of€a€speedy€trial€violation€„€is€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€33€S.W.3d€767,€769Ð tÄ Ð(Tenn.€2000).(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2ÅM$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôûUò»»Ô d(|3}$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]-»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3}$¢¢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€!XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€ OaÑà@ttìàÔ‡îV<]-ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼]-»îîV<#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€March€19,€2002Ð üL ÐÔ‡X!X»¼]-ÔÌò òÔ#†¼]-»XX!0#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóMARK€ANTHONY€GRIFFINÔ‡X!X»¼]-Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òà0 @ àDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€58944€€€€€€Richard€R.€Ô_ÔBaumgartnerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2001„01233„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐDecember€11,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓA€jury€convicted€the€Defendant€of€aggravated€robbery€and€attempted€robbery.€€The€trial€courtÐ xÈ  Ðsentenced€the€Defendant€to€an€effective€nine„year€term.€€The€Defendant€appealed,€and€our€CourtÐ d´ Ðaffirmed€the€case€in€part,€but€remanded€the€case€in€part€for€the€trial€court€to€determine€whether€theÐ P  ÐDefendantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€was€violated.€€On€remand,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÐ <Œ ÐDefendantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€had€not€been€violated.€€The€Defendant€now€appeals€from€the€trialÐ (x Ðcourtððs€order€denying€his€motion€to€dismiss€for€a€violation€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€Finding€noÐ d Ðerror,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð P ÐÓ ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼]-»àX!¬#ÔÔ‡X!X.¼]-ÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòGary€R.€Wade,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ô,óó€andÐ ° ÐòòDavid€H.€Welles,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender,€and€John€Halstead,€Assistant€Public€Defender,Ð tÄ ÐKnoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Mark€Anthony€Griffin.Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Renee€W.€Turner,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐRandall€Eugene€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€G.€Scott€Green,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ $"t! ÐGeneral,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÓ©ÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]-»XX!Ø#ÔòòóóÐ è$8 $ ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ€X!X»¼]-ÔÓÓà@KK&ìàI.€€FACTSˆÐ æ&6"& Ðà@——&ìàA.€€TrialˆÐ ¾($( ÐÓÓà  àThe€following€facts€of€the€underlying€case€were€summarized€by€our€Court€on€direct€appeal:Ð –*æ%* Ðà8  àà ` àOn€February€16,€1993,€there€was€a€robbery€at€a€video€store€in€Knoxville.Ð ‚+Ò&+ ÐWhen€the€masked€perpetrator€entered€the€store,€he€was€carrying€a€gun.€After€enteringÐ n,¾', Ðthe€video€store,€the€perpetrator€demanded€that€the€clerk€give€him€the€money€in€theÐ Z-ª(-ý ÐÑ OaÑâ  âÑ°°Ñâ  âÑ  ÑÔ_Ôcash€drawer.€While€waiting€for€the€clerk€to€open€the€cash€drawer,€the€perpetrator€putÐ ° Ðhis€gun€in€the€face€of€a€customer€who€was€checking€out€at€the€register.€AlreadyÐ œì Ðnervous,€the€perpetrator€began€to€panic€when€the€clerk€started€to€fumble€with€the€cashÐ ˆØ Ðdrawer€and€could€not€get€it€open.€In€a€state€of€panic,€the€perpetrator€grabbed€theÐ tÄ Ðcustomerððs€wallet€and€fled.€Ð`°Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àOn€July€1,€1993,€a€Knox€County€detective€interviewed€the€defendant.€TheÐ L œ Ðdefendant€admitted€his€participation€in€the€robberies€at€the€video€store.€He€stated€thatÐ 8 ˆ Ðhe€told€the€store€clerk€to€give€him€the€money.€When€the€clerk€hit€the€cash€drawer,€theÐ $ t Ðdefendant€stated€that€he€got€scared€and€snatched€the€customerððs€wallet€from€him.€Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€defense€offered€no€proof€at€trial.€Ðü L Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€jury€convicted€the€defendant€of€the€aggravated€robbery€of€the€customerÐ è 8  Ðand€the€attempted€robbery€of€the€store€clerk.€ÐÔ$ Ð Ð  ÐòòState€v.€Mark€Anthony€Griffinóó,€No.€E1999„00122„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€658,Ð À  Ðat€**2„3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Aug.€29,€2000).€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAs€this€Court€noted€on€direct€appeal,€the€trial€court€denied€the€Defendantððs€pre„trial€motionÐ „Ô  Ðto€dismiss€for€prosecutorial€delay.€€The€Defendant€had€alleged€that€the€delay€in€the€prosecution€hadÐ pÀ Ðcaused€the€Defendant€to€lose€the€possibility€of€obtaining€sentences€for€these€crimes€that€would€beÐ \¬ Ðconcurrent€with€a€federal€sentence€previously€received€by€the€Defendant.€€The€trial€court€determinedÐ H˜ Ðthat€although€the€State€had€delayed€the€prosecution€to€gain€a€tactical€advantage,€any€potentialÐ 4„ Ðprejudice€to€the€Defendant€regarding€the€loss€of€the€possibility€of€concurrent€sentencing€could€beÐ  p Ðremedied€at€the€time€the€Defendant€was€sentenced€for€these€crimes,€if€convicted.€€At€the€sentencingÐ  \ Ðhearing,€the€trial€court€ordered€that€the€state€sentences€in€this€case€be€served€concurrently€ð ðinsofarÐ øH Ðas€possibleðð€with€any€time€remaining€on€the€federal€sentence€that€the€Defendant€received€in€JulyÐ ä4 Ð1993.€Ð Ð  ÐÌà@??%ìàB.€€AppealˆÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€appealed€his€conviction,€arguing,€among€other€things,€that€his€right€to€aÐ €Ð Ðspeedy€trial€had€been€violated.€€Specifically,€he€alleged€that€prosecutorial€delay€made€it€impossibleÐ l¼ Ðto€receive€sentences€that€would€run€concurrently€with€his€federal€sentence€that€he€received€in€JulyÐ X ¨ Ð1993.€€Our€Court€described€the€known€sequence€of€events€as€follows:Ð D!” Ðà8  àà ` àPrior€to€June€29,€1993,€the€defendant€and€his€accomplice€were€arrested€andÐ 0"€  Ðbeing€held€in€the€Anderson€County€jail€on€charges€unrelated€to€the€subject€robberies.Ð #l! ÐOn€June€29,€1993,€a€Knox€County€detective€drove€to€Anderson€County€to€questionÐ $X" Ðthe€defendant€and€his€accomplice€about€several€video€store€robberies€that€hadÐ ô$D # Ðoccurred€in€Knox€County.€€The€defendant€initially€agreed€to€talk€to€the€detective,€butÐ à%0!$ Ðlater€decided€not€to€give€a€statement.€€These€facts€appear€undisputed.€ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àOn€July€1,€1993,€the€defendant€and€his€accomplice€were€transferred€to€theÐ ¸'#& ÐKnox€County€jail.€€It€is€unclear€from€the€record€why€the€defendant€was€transferredÐ ¤(ô#' Ðto€the€Knox€County€jail.€€The€defendant€contends€that€it€was€because€he€was€underÐ )à$( Ðð ðarrestðð€for€the€subject€charges.€€Subsequent€to€the€first€hearing€on€the€motion€toÐ |*Ì%) Ðdismiss,€the€state€apparently€turned€over€certain€documents€to€defense€counsel.Ð h+¸&* ÐDefense€counsel€filed€a€supplemental€motion€and€attached€uncertified€documentsÐ ° Ðreflecting€that€warrants€were€issued€on€July€1,€1993,€but€not€served€on€the€defendant.Ð œì ÐAn€alleged€officerððs€report€attached€to€the€motion€indicates€that€the€warrants€wereÐ ˆØ Ðð ðserved€on€the€defendant€at€the€Knox€County€jail.ðð€€Regardless,€it€is€undisputed€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€defendant€gave€a€taped€statement€on€July€1,€1993,€admitting€his€participation€inÐ `° Ðthe€subject€robberies.€ÐL œÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIt€is€undisputed€that€on€July€15,€1993,€the€defendant€received€a€four-yearÐ 8 ˆ Ðsentence€on€federal€charges.€€The€defendant€alleges€that€federal€authorities€sent€KnoxÐ $ t ÐCounty€a€detainer€letter€in€September€1993.€Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€state€took€no€further€action€against€the€defendant€until€he€was€indictedÐ ü L  Ðon€July€24,€1995.€€Defendant€alleges€that€on€October€29,€1996,€the€defendant€wasÐ è 8  Ðparoled€from€the€federal€penitentiary€and€released€into€the€custody€of€officers€fromÐ Ô$  ÐKnox€County.€€On€November€1,€1996,€the€defendant€was€arraigned€on€the€KnoxÐ À  ÐCounty€charges,€and€a€trial€date€was€set€for€February€24,€1997.€€Trial€dates€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðcontinued€several€times€for€reasons€not€set€forth€in€the€record.€€The€defendant€allegesÐ ˜è  Ðthat€one€continuance€was€at€his€request,€and€that€he€was€in€federal€custody€at€the€timeÐ „Ô  Ðone€or€more€trial€dates€were€set.€€He€alleges€that€on€June€27,€1997,€the€defendant€wasÐ pÀ Ðfound€to€be€in€violation€of€his€federal€parole€and€ordered€to€serve€the€remainder€ofÐ \¬ Ðhis€four-year€sentence.€€The€technical€record€reveals€a€bond€forfeiture€in€September€Ð H˜ Ð1997€based€on€the€defendantððs€failure€to€appear;€however,€the€forfeiture€was€later€setÐ 4„ Ðaside.€Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àThe€defendant€alleges€that€on€May€1,€1998,€he€was€released€from€the€federalÐ  \ Ðpenitentiary€after€serving€the€remainder€of€his€sentence€and€transferred€to€KnoxÐ øH ÐCounty.€€A€new€trial€date€was€set€for€October€5,€1998.€€In€the€meantime,€however,€theÐ ä4 Ðdefendantððs€bail€was€reduced,€and€the€defendant€was€released€from€custody.€€OnÐ Ð  ÐOctober€5,€1998,€the€defendant€failed€to€appear€for€trial.€€He€was€allegedly€arrestedÐ ¼  Ðon€February€26,€1999.€Ð¨øÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àOn€August€17,€1999,€the€defendant€was€convicted€by€a€Knox€County€jury€ofÐ ”ä Ðaggravated€robbery€and€attempted€robbery€and€sentenced€to€nine€years€for€theÐ €Ð Ðaggravated€robbery€and€three€years€for€the€attempted€robbery.€€Both€sentences€wereÐ l¼ Ðset€to€run€concurrently€with€each€other€and€concurrently€ð ðinsofar€as€possibleðð€withÐ X ¨ Ðany€time€the€defendant€had€remaining€on€his€federal€sentence.€ÐD!”Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€at€**12„14.€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€concluding€that€the€Defendantððs€case€should€be€remanded€for€a€new€hearing,€our€CourtÐ $X" Ðstated€the€following:Ð ô$D # Ðà8  àà ` àThe€material€facts€relating€to€the€alleged€delay€are€difficult€to€determine€fromÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€record€before€the€court.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€offenses€were€committed€onÐ Ì&"% ÐFebruary€16,€1993;€the€defendant€was€interrogated€on€June€29€and€July€1,€1993;€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdefendant€was€indicted€on€July€24,€1995;€and€the€defendant€was€ultimately€tried€onÐ ¤(ô#' ÐAugust€17,€1999.€€Exactly€what€else€occurred€between€February€1993€and€AugustÐ )à$( Ð1999€is€less€clear.€Ð|*Ì%)Ð Ð  ÐÐ h+¸&* Ðà8  àà ` àOur€examination€of€the€record€reveals€that€no€testimony€or€documentaryÐ ° Ðevidence€was€introduced€by€either€party€relating€to€prosecutorial€delay.€€The€recordÐ œì Ðdoes€contain€transcripts€of€hearings€on€the€motion€to€dismiss€which€includeÐ ˆØ Ðarguments€of€counsel,€but€no€evidence.€€The€technical€record€contains€several€defenseÐ tÄ Ðmotions€relating€to€this€issue€which€contain€an€alleged€chronology€of€events€and€haveÐ `° Ðseveral€uncertified€documents€attached,€none€of€which€is€evidence.€ÐL œÐ Ð  ÐòòId.óó€at€*11.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThis€Court€then€gave€the€following€instructions€to€the€trial€court€on€remand:Ð  ` Ðà8  à(1)€The€trial€court€should€determine€whether€the€defendant€was€under€ð ðarrestðð€byÐ ü L  ÐKnox€County€in€July€1993€in€order€to€determine€the€appropriate€dates€for€the€dueÐ è 8  Ðprocess/€speedy€trial€analysis.€€For€purposes€of€review,€the€trial€court€shall€makeÐ Ô$  Ðfindings€as€to€the€factors€of€any€required€due€process€analysis€(prejudice€andÐ À  Ðintentional€delay€for€tactical€advantage€or€harassment)€and€all€4€factors€of€the€speedyÐ ¬ü  Ðtrial€analysis€(length€of€delay,€reasons€for€delay,€the€defendantððs€assertion€of€his€rightÐ ˜è  Ðto€a€speedy€trial,€and€prejudice).€Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(2)€The€trial€court€should€determine€whether€the€defendant€was€on€bail€for€the€federalÐ pÀ Ðoffense€at€the€time€he€committed€the€subject€robberies.€€If€so,€concurrent€sentencingÐ \¬ Ðwas€not€possible€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(2)(C),€and€the€defendant€can€notÐ H˜ Ð[sic]€establish€prejudice.€€There€can€be€no€due€process€violation,€and€this€factor€willÐ 4„ Ðweigh€heavily€against€the€defendant€in€conducting€a€speedy€trial€analysis.€Ð pÐ Ð  Ðà8  à(3)€If€the€defendant€was€not€on€bail€for€the€federal€offense€at€the€time€he€committedÐ  \ Ðthe€subject€robberies,€a€further€inquiry€will€be€required.€€The€trial€court€shouldÐ øH Ðdetermine€whether€concurrent€sentencing€was€a€reasonable€probability€pursuant€toÐ ä4 ÐTenn.€R.€App.€P.€32(c)(2)€(ð ðgood€causeðð).€ÐÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  à(4)€The€trial€court€shall€enter€appropriate€findings€and€an€order.€€If€the€trial€courtÐ ¼  Ðoverrules€the€motion€to€dismiss,€it€shall€reinstate€the€judgments€of€conviction.€€If€theÐ ¨ø Ðtrial€court€grants€the€motion€to€dismiss,€it€shall€enter€an€order€accordingly.€€EitherÐ ”ä Ðparty€may€appeal€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€to€this€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€3(b)€andÐ €Ð Ð(c).€Ðl¼Ð Ð  ÐòòId.óó€at€**27„28.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà@þ þ ìàC.€€Trial€Courtððs€Findings€on€RemandˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€conducted€a€hearing€and€considered€documentary€evidenceÐ $X" Ðpertaining€to€due€process/speedy€trial€issues.€€The€trial€court€admitted€into€evidence€and€examinedÐ ô$D # Ða€document€entitled€ð ðARREST€REPORTðð€which€indicated€that€the€Defendant€was€arrested€for€twoÐ à%0!$ Ðcounts€of€aggravated€robbery€on€July€1,€1993.€€The€document€was€signed€by€Darrell€Johnson,€aÐ Ì&"% Ðdetective€with€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department.€€Also€admitted€into€evidence€were€documentsÐ ¸'#& Ðpertaining€to€the€Defendantððs€federal€court€conviction€and€sentence.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌâ âà  àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€made€the€following€findings:Ð |*Ì%) Ðà8  àBased€on€the€documentation€that€I€have€in€front€of€me,€I€am€going€to€make€theseÐ ° Ðâ âfindings.€€First€of€all,€[the€Defendant]€was€arrested€on€July€1,€1993,€on€charges€forÐ œì Ðwhich€he€was€ultimately€tried€in€this€Court€in€1999€and€found€guilty€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðaggravated€robbery€charges.€€ÐtÄÐ Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àSo€the€only€analysis€is€the€speedy€trial€analysis.€€I€next€find€that€he€wasÐ `° Ðcharged€with€a€federal€offense€in€August€of€1992,€a€weapons€offense;€and,€althoughÐ L œ Ðwe€donððt€know€the€exact€date€of€the€conviction,€we€know€that€he€was€sentenced€onÐ 8 ˆ Ðthat€charge€in€July€„€„€that€would€be€July€15òòthóó€of€1993,€at€which€time€he€received€48Ð $ t Ðmonths€in€federal€custody.€€Ð `Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àSo€we€know€he€was€under€indictment€or€under€charge€federally€betweenÐ ü L  ÐAugust€of€1992€and€July€15òòthóó€of€1993,€at€which€time€he€was€sentenced.€€By€necessity,Ð è 8  Ðhe€was€on€some€form€of€release€status,€because€he€was€not€in€custody,€whether€it€wasÐ Ô$  Ðpre„trial€release,€release€on€his€own€recognizance,€or€the€posting€of€an€actual€bail.€€ÐÀ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àI€find€that€is€contemplated€by€our€statutes€to€be€on€bond€pending€finalÐ ¬ü  Ðdisposition€of€the€case,€which€would€be€sentencing€and€the€entering€of€judgment.€€SoÐ ˜è  ÐI€find€he€was€on€release€status€between€August€of€ðð92€and€July€of€ðð93.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àTherefore,€under€the€Tennessee€statutes€„€„€this€offense€would€have€beenÐ pÀ Ðcommitted€in€February€of€1993.€€He€was€on€release€status€for€a€felony€at€the€time€thatÐ \¬ Ðthis€felony€was€committed,€and€by€statute€then€this€sentence€has€to€run€consecutivelyÐ H˜ Ðto€the€federal€sentence,€which€means€that€he€was€not€prejudiced€by€the€fact€that€heÐ 4„ Ðwas€not€tried€prior€to€1999,€because€the€sentence€could€not€have€run€concurrentlyÐ  p Ðwith€the€federal€sentence.Ð \Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àIt€had€to€have€run€by€statute,€by€operation€of€law,€consecutively€to€the€federalÐ øH Ðstatute.€€Ðä4Ð Ð  ÐÌà@yy$ìàII.€€ANALYSISˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà@22ìàA.€€Legal€Standards€for€Speedy€TrialˆÐ ”ä ÐÌà  àA€criminal€defendant€is€guaranteed€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial€by€our€federal€and€stateÐ l¼ Ðconstitutions€and€by€state€statute.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð€9;€Tenn.€CodeÐ X ¨ ÐAnn.€ðð€40„14„101.€€The€right€to€a€speedy€trial€protects€the€accused€from€oppressive€pretrialÐ D!” Ðincarceration,€anxiety€and€concern€arising€from€unresolved€criminal€charges,€and€the€possibility€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthe€accusedððs€defense€will€be€impaired€by€fading€memories€and€the€loss€of€exculpatory€evidence.€Ð #l! ÐòòSeeóó€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€654€(1992);€òòState€v.€Simmonsóó,€54€S.W.3d€755,€758Ð $X" Ð(Tenn.€2001).€€ð ðThe€right€to€a€speedy€trial€attaches€at€the€time€of€arrest€or€indictment,€whicheverÐ ô$D # Ðcomes€first,€and€continues€until€the€date€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Vickersóó,€985€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð à%0!$ ÐApp.€1997).€€In€determining€whether€the€defendantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€has€been€compromised,Ð Ì&"% Ðfour€factors€must€be€weighed:€€the€length€of€the€delay,€the€reason€for€the€delay,€the€defendantððsÐ ¸'#& Ðassertion€of€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial,€and€any€prejudice€to€the€defendant€caused€by€the€delay.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¤(ô#' ÐòòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,€530€(1972);€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83„85€(Tenn.€1973).€Ð )à$( Ðð ðThe€single€most€important€factor€is€whether€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay,€and€the€mostÐ |*Ì%) Ðimportant€issue€concerning€prejudice€to€the€defendant€is€the€impairment€of€the€ability€to€prepare€aÐ h+¸&* Ðdefense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Bakeróó,€614€S.W.2d€352,€356€(Tenn.€1981).€€To€trigger€the€òòBarkeróó€analysis,€theÐ ° Ðinterval€between€accusation€and€trial€must€be€ð ðpresumptively€prejudicial.ðð€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€651„Ð œì Ð52.€€A€delay€of€at€least€one€year€crosses€this€threshold.€€òòId.óó;€òòVickersóó,€985€S.W.2d€at€5.€€Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àWe€use€an€abuse€of€discretion€standard€of€review€in€determining€whether€the€trial€courtÐ `° Ðcorrectly€applied€the€four„part€balancing€test€to€the€Defendantððs€claim€that€his€right€to€a€speedy€trialÐ L œ Ðwas€violated.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Jeffersonóó,€938€S.W.2d€1,€14€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996);€òòState€v.€JosephÐ 8 ˆ ÐHartóó,€No.€02C01„9902„CC„00075,€1999€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€940,€at€**€9„10€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð $ t ÐApp.,€Jackson,€Sept.€20,€1999);€òòState€v.€Jeffery€Jermaine€Hankinsóó,€No.€02C01„9806„CC„00170,€1999Ð  ` ÐTenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS,€at€**€28„29€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€4,€1999);€òòState€v.€Roy€DaleÐ ü L  ÐWakefieldóó,€No.€01C01„9609„CR„00389,€1998€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€94,€at€*€5€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð è 8  ÐApp.,€Nashville,€Jan.€21,€1998).׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€standard€of€review€ð ðcontemplates€that€before€reversal€theÐ Ô$  Ðrecord€must€show€that€a€judge€ððapplied€an€incorrect€legal€standard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€isÐ À  Ðagainst€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€an€injustice€to€the€party€complaining.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Coleyóó,€32Ð ¬ü  ÐS.W.3d€831,€833€(Tenn.€2000)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,€6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999)).€Ð ˜è  ÐAlternatively,€ð ð[a]n€abuse€of€discretion€exists€when€the€reviewing€court€is€firmly€convinced€that€theÐ „Ô  Ðlower€court€has€made€a€mistake€in€that€it€affirmatively€appears€that€the€lower€courtððs€decision€hasÐ pÀ Ðno€basis€in€law€or€in€fact€and€is€therefore€arbitrary,€illogical,€or€unconscionable.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brown€&Ð \¬ ÐWilliamson€Tobacco€Corp.óó,€18€S.W.3d€186,€191€(Tenn.€2000).Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà@ªªìàB.€€Application€of€Balancing€TestˆÐ  p ÐÌà@çç!ìà1.€€Length€of€DelayˆÐ øH ÐÌà  àIn€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€date€of€the€Defendantððs€arrest€was€July€1,€1993.€Ð Ð  ÐThis€is€the€date€triggering€the€speedy€trial€analysis.€€The€Defendant€was€arraigned€on€November€1,Ð ¼  Ð1996,€and€his€trial€began€on€February€4,€1997.€€Thus,€the€length€of€delay€between€the€DefendantððsÐ ¨ø Ðarrest€and€his€trial€was€almost€four€years.€€While€this€is€a€substantial€delay,€it€does€not,€in€and€ofÐ ”ä Ðitself,€establish€a€constitutional€violation.€€òòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€òòVickersóó,€985€S.W.2d€at€7€(affirming€the€trialÐ €Ð Ðcourtððs€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€a€speedy€trial€where€delay€was€threeÐ l¼ Ðyears€and€nine€months).€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€previously€found€that€a€delay€of€overÐ X ¨ Ðthirteen€years€did€not€constitute€a€speedy€trial€violation.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Woodóó,€924€S.W.2d€342,€346„49Ð D!” Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€also€found€that€a€length€of€delay€of€two€years€isÐ 0"€  Ðnot€enough€by€itself€to€find€that€a€defendant€has€been€denied€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€òòSeeóó€òòBishopóó,Ð #l! Ð493€S.W.2d€at€84.Ð $X" ÐÌà@%%ìà2.€€Reason€for€the€DelayˆÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% Ðà  àReasons€for€delay€generally€fall€into€four€categories:€ð ð(1)€intentional€delay€to€gain€a€tacticalÐ ° Ðâ âadvantage€over€the€defense€or€delay€designed€to€harass€the€defendant;€(2)€bureaucratic€indifferenceÐ œì Ðor€negligence;€(3)€delay€necessary€to€the€fair€and€effective€prosecution€of€the€case;€and€(4)€delayÐ ˆØ Ðcaused,€or€acquiesced€in,€by€the€defense.ðð€€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€346„47€(footnotes€omitted).€€In€thisÐ tÄ Ðcase,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€State€had€intentionally€delayed€the€proceedings€for€the€purposeÐ `° Ðgaining€a€tactical€advantage.€€However,€we€noted€the€following€on€direct€appeal:Ð L œ Ðà8  àThe€record€is€silent€as€to€the€reason€for€the€delay€between€July€1993€and€July€1995.Ð 8 ˆ ÐA€review€of€the€record€shows€that€the€defendant€was€arraigned€on€the€July€1995Ð $ t Ðindictment€on€November€1,€1996,€allegedly€after€being€released€on€parole€from€hisÐ  ` Ðfederal€sentence.€€Subsequently,€a€trial€date€was€set€for€February€24,€1997.€€TrialÐ ü L  Ðdates€were€continued€on€several€occasions,€although€the€record€is€inconclusive€as€toÐ è 8  Ðthe€reasons.€€Defense€memoranda€suggest€reasons,€some€of€which€would€not€be€theÐ Ô$  Ðfault€of€the€defendant.€€Some€suggested€by€the€state€would€be€the€fault€of€theÐ À  Ðdefendant.€€Although€there€does€not€appear€to€be€any€bad€faith€on€the€part€of€the€stateÐ ¬ü  Ðfrom€the€date€of€indictment€until€trial,€the€trial€court€may€re-examine€this€issue€uponÐ ˜è  Ðremand.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐòòMark€Anthony€Griffinóó,€2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€658,€at€**€24„25.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€did€not€re„examine€the€issue€of€whether€there€was€any€bad€faithÐ H˜ Ðon€the€part€of€the€State.€€However,€even€assuming€that€the€State€intentionally€delayed€theÐ 4„ Ðproceedings,€we€have€concluded€that€the€outcome,€based€on€all€the€òòBarkeróó€factors,€would€be€theÐ  p Ðsame.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà@  ìà3.€€Defendantððs€Assertion€of€Right€to€Speedy€TrialˆÐ ä4 ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€on€May€26,€1999€when€he€filed€a€motionÐ ¼  Ðto€dismiss.€€He€contends€that€he€could€not€have€asserted€his€right€prior€to€May€26,€1999€because€aÐ ¨ø Ðwarrant€had€not€been€filed.€€The€Defendant€states€that€he€could€not€have€filed€a€motion€to€dismissÐ ”ä Ðon€the€basis€that€he€was€denied€a€speedy€trial€when€a€charge€had€not€been€formally€filed€against€him.€Ð €Ð ÐThe€Defendant€was€charged€by€presentment€on€July€26,€1995,€and€a€capias€was€served€on€him€onÐ l¼ ÐOctober€29,€1996.€€ð ð[A]n€accused€who€is€unaware€that€charges€are€pending€against€him€or€her,€as€isÐ X ¨ Ðoften€the€case€wherein€an€indictment€has€been€sealed€and€not€served,€cannot€be€penalized€for€his€orÐ D!” Ðher€failure€to€assert€the€speedy€trial€right.ðð€€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€347€n.13.€€However,€we€note€thatÐ 0"€  Ðthere€was€almost€a€three„year€delay€between€the€time€the€capias€was€served€on€the€Defendant€andÐ #l! Ðthe€time€that€he€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss.€€As€this€Court€noted€on€direct€appeal,€ð ðit€appears€theÐ $X" Ðdefendant€did€not€actively€seek€a€swift€trial.€€This€factor€weighs€heavily€in€favor€of€the€state.ðð€€òòMarkÐ ô$D # ÐAnthony€Griffinóó,€2000€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€LEXIS€at€*26.€€€€à p àà È àà  àà x àÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà@öö$ìà4.€€PrejudiceˆÐ ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àPrejudice,€of€course,€should€be€assessed€in€the€light€of€the€interests€of€defendantsÐ )à$( Ðwhich€the€speedy€trial€right€was€designed€to€protect.€€This€Court€has€identified€threeÐ |*Ì%) Ðsuch€interests:€€(i)€to€prevent€oppressive€pretrial€incarceration;€(ii)€to€minimizeÐ h+¸&* Ðanxiety€and€concern€of€the€accused;€and€(iii)€to€limit€the€possibility€that€the€defenseÐ ° Ðwill€be€impaired.€€Of€these,€the€most€serious€is€the€last,€because€the€inability€of€aÐ œì Ðdefendant€adequately€to€prepare€his€case€skews€the€fairness€of€the€entire€system.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532€(footnote€omitted).€€On€direct€appeal,€our€Court€concluded€that€theÐ tÄ ÐDefendant€did€not€establish€prejudice€due€to€the€alleged€lapse€in€memory€of€the€detective€relatingÐ `° Ðto€representations€of€concurrent€sentencing.€€Thus,€the€Defendantððs€attempt€to€establish€prejudice€onÐ L œ Ðremand€was€limited€to€the€potential€loss€of€concurrent€sentencing.Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOn€remand,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€Defendantððs€federal€release€status€was€the€equivalentÐ  ` Ðof€being€released€on€bail€for€the€purposes€of€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€32(c)(3)(C).€€TheÐ ü L  Ðtrial€court€found€that€because€the€Defendant€was€on€bail€at€the€time€he€committed€the€crimes€in€thisÐ è 8  Ðcase,€he€was€not€eligible€for€concurrent€sentencing.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(3)(C).€€Thus,€theÐ Ô$  Ðtrial€court€found€that€the€Defendant€was€not€prejudiced€because€he€would€have€been€ineligible€forÐ À  Ðconcurrent€sentencing.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àWe€cannot€conclude€that€the€trial€court€applied€an€incorrect€legal€standard€or€reached€aÐ „Ô  Ðdecision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning.€€Therefore,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€did€notÐ pÀ Ðabuse€its€discretion€in€denying€the€Defendantððs€claim€that€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€was€violated.€Ð \¬ ÐAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€AFFIRMED.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð  \ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGE