WPC- 9b fu'>ѩn;WJ.gi5Bpظ;A [Ƭwq[`%qD񕎱Dwݙx gѳe?R4V14'?ZphP aDh3!r-.ΒK&9:K(BuH^z(tWtCchxnx`lM;`%P R/B671蔈ebM\⒎BG;K`׮<>)w5O0rH{;]m<P|w&Jo˜ъY/ɍ : %>O;t؜ \0/8f/_;"^{:Ѓ%HK?s>CM/Lt˖wx(On#b %\^ b 0nU2NwD4H\ zk m # i   LU9@NR 1T 72E  1u 72 0c 1 72 1 0Da 72 0 1{ 1 72 1 72B 0wt 1 72x 1 721 1c 72 72"bT 1\ 72 1 72 1 72U 1 1 72 72h 1a 72 0 0 0D! 0! 0" 0# 0D$ 1% 72T&v&&&'''''''''' 0(((( B(( 0) D5) D-) 0K * * ASk** 0+ 0D(, Al,ji) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJ~'ogram Files3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60 _ R:$      1  XnX  _ԀXnXXXn)XXnTheactuallanguageintheActusestheword coextensive,asynonymforconcurrent.#))##XnX)#ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z(Times New Roman (CEKQW]cioAutoList1A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A. (CEKQW]cioAutoList3A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(#$  0  A.(|3h$ !.8Pdd8     ( CEKQW]cioAutoList9A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(CEKQW]cioAutoList4A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A."A.0CEKSY_ekqAutoList5A.(1)A.A.A.A.A.A.$A.(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(CEMU]emu}AutoList6(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)'(1)(CEKQW]cioAutoList7A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.)A.(CEMU]emu}AutoList8(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)+(1)!A.- -(*EGMSY_ekqAutoList10A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A./A.(:EGMSY_ekqAutoList11A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.1A.(JEGMSY_ekqAutoList12A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.3A.(jEGMSY_ekqAutoList14A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.(ZEGMSY_ekqAutoList13A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.6A.5A. ^ R:$      3  XnX  _Ԁ)XXnThe1982AmendmenttoChapter254oftheTennesseePrivateActsof1947,specificallySection24,  providesthatvenueshallliewiththeMauryCountyGeneralSessionsCourtlocatednearesttothegeographicallocation  oftheactwhichgivesrisetojurisdictioninaparticularcase.Itisclearthismandateisdirectedatjuvenileproceedings T only.#XnX)#&<=>?@AhEGKOSW[_cAutoList15)1)a):B(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# 0EGMSY_ekqAutoList16A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.CA. l R:$      2  XnX  _)XXnԀWenotethatoneofthedefendantsfiledamotiontoreducehisbond.AfterahearingbyaMt.Pleasant  judge,thedefendantsbondwasreduced.#XnX)~#Ԁ  (|G2:$ !.8Pdd8         0  XnX d(|3h$ !.8Pdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3h$ !.8Pdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Pdd8     _P8nXXdd8HOY@HHPPINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE    June20,2000Session  XnXP #PXXn#JAMESEARLKIRK,XnXPETAL.#PXXn.#Ԁv.STATEOFTENNESSEE#PP#PPXnXP  @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforMauryCounty   @@@ @ No.11263JimT.Hamilton,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<K` A L  @@ No.M199901369CCA_OT_ԄCOFiledNovember9,_2000_ A  AV) ` dE< ` A  ]  #XnXXXn##PXXn#XnXPXnXXXn  InthisinterlocutoryappealtheStateraisesthequestionofwhethertheMauryCountyCircuitCourt, R  relyingonTenn.R._Crim_.P.5(a),erredbyorderingthatallproceedingsinacaseheardingeneral 8 sessionscourtmustbeheardinthecourtclosesttothelocationoftheoffense.Itistheopinionof  thisCourtthattheplainlanguageofTenn.R._Crim_.P.5(a)controlstheoutcomeofthiscase.The  controversyinthiscaseturnsontheword nearestasusedinthestatute.Acursoryreadingofthe  statutecouldunderstandablyleadonetobelievethattheterm nearestwasintendedtoconvey  geographicproximity.However,suchanarrowreadingoftheworddoesnotyieldthedesiredresult f theRulewasintendedtohave,andcannotbereadwithinthestrictconfinesoftheplainlanguage L setforththerein.Theterm nearestisbroaderinscopethanmeregeographicaldistance.Itisthe 2 opinionofthisCourtthatasusedinTenn.R._Crim_.P.5(a), nearestwasintendedtobeanalyzed h temporally. N Ѐ 4 #XnXXXnn##PXXnO#XnXPXnXXXn  Tenn.R.App.P.9#XnXXXni #XnXXXn#PXXnJ #XnXPInterlocutoryAppeal;OrderoftheCircuitCourtof  MauryCountyVacated    JohnEverettWilliams#PXn #XnX.P,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.WellesandJerry | L.Smith,JJ.,joined. b   PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;DavidF._Findley_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; ."~" T.MichaelBottoms,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;RobertC.Sanders,AssistantDistrictAttorneys #d# General,fortheappellant,StateofTennessee.#PXXn #XnXP#XnXXXn #XnXXXn #J$ JohnS._Colley_,III,Columbia,Tennessee,fortheappellees,JamesEarlKirk,ChristopherCaldwell %!& andHomerSmith. &!'   #XnXXXn9#XnXXXn OPINION#PXXn#XnXP  x(#)     AcursoryreadingoftheplainlanguageofTenn.R._Crim_.P.5(a)doesnotrendertheresult D*%+ thestatutewasdesignedtohave.Theterm nearestisbroaderinscopethanmeregeographical *+z&, distance.ItistheopinionofthisCourtthattheword nearest,asusedinTenn.R._Crim_.P5(a), ,`'- wasintendedtobeanalyzedtemporally.#PXXn##PPZ#XnXPXnXXXnFurther,Tenn.R._Crim_.P.5(a)speaksonlytoaninitial ,F(. appearanceanddoesnotlayastructuralfoundationforthepathsubsequentproceedingsareto -,)/ _follow.Anyproceedingsfollowingtheinitialappearancearenotrequiredtotakeplaceinthesame  courtwheretheinitialappearancetookplace.#PXXn##PP2#PPXnXP     FACTS  b     PursuanttoChapter254oftheTennesseePrivateActsof1947,theGeneralSessionsCourts . ~ forMauryCountywerecreated.PartIoftheMauryCountyGeneralSessionsCourtwasplacedin  d Columbia,TennesseeandPartIIoftheMauryCountyGeneralSessionsCourtwasplacedinMt.  J Pleasant,Tennessee.#XnXXXn4##PXXnS#PPXnXPFurther,thejurisdictionofbothpartswastobeconcurrent.  #  1      ׀Nosubsequent  0 amendmentstoChapter254havedisturbedthiscoextensiveexistence.      Thisinterlocutoryappealisrepresentativeofalongstandingdisputeregardingwhichpart   adefendantshouldbetakentoforhisorherinitialappearanceafterbeingarrested.Asthisdispute x  appliestothiscase,eachofthedefendantsweretakenbeforeajudgeinMt.Pleasantaftertheir ^  individualarrests.Thedefendantscontendthattheyshouldhavebeentakenbeforeajudgein D  ColumbiabecauseColumbiawasgeographicallyclosertowhereeachdefendantwasarrested.The *z  onlyotherdistinctionofrelevancebetweenthetwocourtsisthatMt.Pleasantspresetbondsare ` asmuchastentimeshigherthanColumbiaspresetbonds.Ev #  2      ׀#PXXn#XnXP#XnXXXn#XnXXXn F   SubsequenttothedefendantsinitialappearancesbeforethejudgeinMt.Pleasant,theyfiled  amotiontotransfertheircasestoColumbiarelyinguponTenn.R.Crim.P.5(a).Thismotionwas  deniedbytheGeneralSessionsjudgeinMt.Pleasant.Thedefendantsthenappealedthedenialof  themotiontotheCircuitCourtforMauryCounty. t   AfterahearingintheCircuitCourtforMauryCounty,relyingonRule5(a),thecourtordered @ inpartasfollows: Fromthisdayforward,anyandallproceedingsonanychargesofanyperson &v arrestedorcitedforanyoffense,includingtrafficoffenses,shallbeheldinthepartofGeneral  \ SessionsCourtofMauryCounty,Tennessee,nearesttothegeographicallocationoftheoffenseor B offensesalleged.Thesignificanceofthisorderistodividethecounty,therebylimitingthe ( jurisdictionofthetwoGeneralSessionsCourtstogeographicalboundarieswithinthecounty.  Further,itrequiresthearrestingofficertodeterminewheretheoffenseoccurredandtoinitiate  criminalchargesonlyintheGeneralSessionsCourtclosestindistanceorgeographicallocation.     Finally,theStatefiledanapplicationforastayandamotionforpermissiontoappeal V"! pursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.9.TheCircuitCourtgrantedboththestayandthemotionfor <#" interlocutoryappeal.ThisappealisnowproperlybeforethisCourt. "$r# ̀ &$"& #XnXXXn#XnXXXn   ANALYSIS   #  Anumberofcontentionshavebeensetforthbybothpartiesinthisappeal.Totheextent | possible,thesecontentionswillbeaddressedjointly.Wewillfirstaddressthecontentionssetforth b bytheState. H  C(83   LimitingJurisdiction   d     TheStatecontendsthattheMauryCountyCircuitCourterredinorderingthatallproceedings  0 incriminalcasesmustbeheardintheGeneralSessionsCourtclosestingeographicallocationtothe    allegedoffense.Thedefendants,however,contendthattheorderoftheCircuitCourtwascorrect.    InsupportoftheStatescontention,theStatearguesthattheCircuitCourt,byitsorder,has   improperlylimitedthejurisdictionofthetwoMauryCountyGeneralSessionsCourts.In x  furtheranceofthisargument,theStatesetsforththatArticleVI,1oftheTennesseeConstitution ^  grantsthelegislaturethepowertocreatecourtsof general,special,orlimitedjurisdictionwithin D  aparticularcountyorlocality.Therefore,theStateassertsthatonlythelegislature,notaCircuit *z  Court,mayexpandorlimitthejurisdictionoftheinferiorcourtsinTennessee.Weagreewiththe ` State. F   ThisCourtacknowledgesthatbothlegislativemandatesandprivateactshaveconferredupon  PartsIandIIoftheMauryCountyGeneralSessionCourtthejurisdictiontohearcasesoccurring  anywherewithinthebordersofMauryCounty.Further,absentanactofthelegislature,theCircuit  CourtcannotlimitthejurisdictionoftheGeneralSessionsCourts.Wenote,however,thatjuvenile t caseshavebeenspecificallyexcepted.Jurisdictiontohearjuvenilecaseshasbeenlimitedby Z geographicproximity.9 #  3       @   AswereadthestatutesconferringjurisdictiononPartIandPartII,thestatutesgiveboth  \ partsconcurrentjurisdictiontohearcriminaloffensesoccurringinMauryCounty.Whenthe B legislaturecreatedthesecourtsbyprivateactitdidnotlimittheirjurisdictionbygeographical ( boundarieswithinthecounties.     InitialAppearances        TheStatecontendsthatTenn.R.Crim.P.5(a)appliesonlytoinitialappearancesbycriminal V"! defendants.#XnXXXn##XnXXXn#PXXn[#XnXPTheStatearguesthatthetitleandplainlanguageoftheRulelimitittoinitial <#" appearancesonly.WeagreethatRule5appliesonlytoinitialappearancesanddoesnotapplyto "$r# subsequentproceedings.#XnXXXn/#XnXXXn#PXXn40#XnXP %X $  &$"&    AppellateAuthorityoftheCircuitCourt       TheStatecontendsthattheMauryCountyCircuitCourtdidnotpossesstherequisite | appellateauthoritytoadjudicatethismatter.Thedefendants,however,contendthattheMaury b CountyCircuitCourtdidpossesstherequisiteappellateauthoritytoadjudicatethismatter.In H supportoftheircontention,thedefendantsciteTenn.Crim.App.1610112,statingthatthis . ~ sectionconfersappellatejurisdictionontheCircuitCourttocorrecterrorsbyaGeneralSessions  d Courtincriminalcases.WeagreewiththedefendantsthattheCircuitCourtdidpossessthe  J requisiteappellatejurisdictiontohearthismatterandthattheappealwasproperlybeforetheCircuit  0 Court.#XnXXXnk1#XnXXXn#PXXn1#XnXP    ! !   LegislativeIntent: Near        ThedefendantscontendthatthelanguagecontainedinTenn.R.Crim.P.5(a), nearest ^  appropriatemagistrate,meansnearestingeographicallocation.Assuch,thedefendantsarguethat D  theirindividualcasesshouldbetransferredtotheothercourt,andthatthisistheappropriateremedy *z  fornotoriginallytakingthembeforethenearestgeographicallylocatedjudge.Wedisagreefor ` reasonssetforthbelow.Further,indecidingthisissue,wefeelcompelledtoattempttoprovidea F definitiveinterpretationofthelanguagecontainedinTenn.R.Crim.P.5(a)asrelatestothese , defendants.  ̀  TheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedureareconsideredthe lawofthisstate,infull  forceandeffectuntilsuchtimeastheyaresupercededbylegislativeenactments,orinconsistent t rulesarepromulgatedbytheSupremeCourtandadoptedbytheGeneralAssembly.SeeTennessee Z DepartmentofHumanServicesv.Vaughn,595S.W.2d62(Tenn.1980).Asappliedtothiscase, @ Tenn.R.Crim.P.1providesonitsfacethatRule5shallgovernprocedureinGeneralSessions &v Courtsofthisstate.  \ #XnXXXn5##PXXn6#XnXPXnXXXn  TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure5(a)statesthat theinitialappearanceofanyperson ( arrestedexceptuponacapiaspursuanttoanindictmentorpresentmentshallbetakenwithout  unnecessarydelaybeforethenearestappropriatemagistrateofthecountyfromwhichthewarrant  forarrestissued,orthecountyinwhichtheallegedoffenseoccurredifthearrestwasmadewithout   awarrantunlessacitationisissuedpursuanttorule3.5.InarecentopinionwrittenbytheAttorney p!  GeneraloftheStateofTennesseeontheissueof arrestorcitationincountieswithmorethanone V"! generalsessionscourt,theAttorneyGeneralopinedthatanypersonarrestedwastobebrought <#" beforethe nearestavailablemagistrate.OAG99149(8/10/99).Unfortunately,theopinionofthe "$r# AttorneyGeneralsofficedoesnotofferanyguidanceintermsoflegislativeintentwhenexamining %X $ theword nearestinTenn.R.Crim.P.5(a). %>!%     Weacknowledgethatonitsface,Tenn.R.Crim.P.5(a)mayappeartomandatethatthe ' #' initialappearanceofanypersonarrestedmustbebeforethegeographically nearestappropriate (#( magistrateofthecountyfromwhichthewarrantforarrestissued,orthecountyinwhichthealleged )$) offenseoccurred#XnXXXn<##PXXn}<#PPXnXP.However,thisCourtdoesnotbelievethatthiswastheintentoftheRule.A l*%* narrowinterpretationoftheword nearestinRule5wouldthwartthepurposeoftheTennessee R+&+ RulesofCriminalProcedure.ThepurposeofRule5istoprovideforthejustdeterminationofevery 8,', criminalproceeding,andshouldbeconstruedtosecuresimplicityinprocedure,fairnessin  administration,andtheeliminationofunjustifiableexpenseanddelay.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.2.    BlacksLawDictionarysetsforththattheword nearhasseveraldifferentmeanings b separatefromthatofgeographicproximity.BlacksLawDictionary1029(6thed.1990).Oneofthe H specificdefinitionssetforthinBlacksLawDictionaryisthat nearmeans notfardistantintime. . ~ Id.Itisthisdefinition,withintheplainlanguageoftheword,thatthisCourtbelieveswastheintent  d oftheRule.  J #XnXXXn%C#XnXXXn#PXXnDC#XnXP  WeconcludethattheRuleintendedtemporalproximitywhenusingtheword nearasa    meansofassuringthathistorydoesnotrepeatitself.Thisprovisionisasafeguarddesignedtoensure    thatapersonwhoisarrestedisnotallowedtolanguishinajailcell,orworse,beforgotten.State   v.Readus,764S.W.2d770,773(Tenn.Crim.App.1988). Thepurposeof[this]rulewastoinsure x  thevitalityofthepresumptionofinnocencebythepromptandneutraldeterminationofprobable ^  causebyamagistrateafterarrest. Themagistratesrole...[is]toassurethatconstitutionalrights D  [are]protected.Amongst[these]rights[are]thepresumptionofinnocence,therighttobail,theright *z  tocounsel,andtherighttobefreefromselfincrimination.Statev.Huddleston,924S.W.2d666, ` 677(Tenn.1996).AstheRuleintended,apersonistobetakenbeforeamagistrateassoonas F practicalafterbeingarrested. , #XnXXXnH#XnXXXn#PXXnGH#XnXPԀ    Inseekingthemeaningoftheword nearestinthecontextoftherule,wemustlooktothe  purposeoftherule.Wedonotbelievethatitishelpfultointerprettheruleinsuchamannerasto  contemplateorencouragedebatesoverwhetherdistancesshouldbemeasured thewaytheroad t goesor thewaythecrowflies.Wealsoseenoreasontosuggestthatitiscrucialtodetermine Z whetheronegeneralsessionscourtroomisafewmomentsclosertothe sceneofthecrimethan @ theother.Ifitappearsthatbothgeneralsessionsjudgesaregenerallyequallyavailablewithinthe &v county,thenwebelieveRule5(b)contemplatesthateitheronewillbeacceptable.  \    DueProcessViolations  (     ThedefendantscontendthattheprocedureutilizedbytheofficersofMauryCountyin  somewayviolatestheirrighttodueprocess.Athoroughreviewoftherecordrevealsnodueprocess   violations.Thiscontentioniswithoutmerit. p!     Venue  <#"     Inourreviewoftherecord,thecourttooknoteofthemotionfiledbythedefendantsseeking %X $ tochangevenuefromonecourtwithinthecountytoanothercourtwithinthecounty.Webelieve %>!% thatifweweretoconcludethisopinionwithoutabriefcommentonthismotionwewouldbe &$"& prematurelyconcludingouranalysis.Withregardstoamotiontochangevenuewithinacounty,this ' #' Courtisunawareofanyproceedingheretoforethatwouldrecognizearighttochangevenuewithin (#( acounty.Therefore,whenadefendantfeelsaggrievedbythecourtinwhichheorshewastaken, )$) theappropriateremedywouldbetocontestthejurisdictionofthecourthearingthecase.The l*%* defendantsmotioncontestingvenuewasnotproper. R+&+  8,', HOY H H  #XnXXXn%M##PXXngM#PPXnXP  CONCLUSION       ItistheopinionofthisCourtthatTenn.R.Crim.P.5(a)appliesonlytoinitialappearances b ofcriminaldefendants.Continuing,asusedinTenn.R.Crim.P.5(a), nearestisbroaderinscope H thanmeregeographicaldistanceandwasintendedtobeanalyzedtemporally.Finally,theorderset . ~ outbytheMauryCountyCircuitCourthasusurpedpowerspecificallygrantedtothelegislatureand  d therefore,cannotstand.#PXXnW#XnXP#XnXXXnV#XnXXXn  J   Z   `     h     ____________________________________ ^     `     h     JOHNEVERETTWILLIAMS,JUDGE D   #PXXnY##PPY# )(88C