WPCA Lދ@j'_͏+<f✐=&C ($jɣDZ'6Ek Dr)PDEϻb!dշkvJs'Eʻ6?zkRu=#̀A K4 !Smx\ 6F; Q i6Az_D+p QGAnϴfPG0F|=ndTh]a_ЋƵ %BS-_jy:M$g3`m+0IϞ'T .8XI%6zby N!x⬦Ev&y8*:T- ps_%4^?yzN שwa/L)+C˙_ֵ5 2NܱT;0dqMA$pgcCv"7_|4DXR;lP$ZhbE ߷h Ǧ=U;6VIgl:4Jfc,pb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0D   a ' 1NtNv 72xE 1u 72! 0 cSSSv,,,,,,,,,,b444444444444444444444444444444444444 0<<<< B'' 0D D5 D- 0KJJ AS 0 0DR AHP LaserJet 40500R+ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*\P C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(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   l R $      1  }  _Itisnotclearfromtherecordwhetherthedefendantsarrestwaswarrantlessandawarrantissuedlaterthat  dayorwhetherthearrestwaspursuanttowarrant.Forpurposesofthisappeal,itmakesnodifference. - -(|G2 $ !.8Gdd8         0  } d(|3$ !.8Gdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Gdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Gdd8     _   G8XXdd8@ttU4GINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#GU4 #Ԉ &    @  @` June26,2001Session L XXG #GXX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.HARRYM._NIMMONS_XXG  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.70893Richard_Baumgartner_,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200002396CCAR3CD   August14,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     ThestateappealsfromtheKnoxCountyCriminalCourtsdismissalofathreecountpresentment x  againstthedefendant,HarryM._Nimmons_.Thetrialcourtpremiseditsdismissalofthepresentment d uponthelackofapreliminaryhearingpriortoreturnofthepresentment,althoughthecourtfound P thatthelackofapreliminaryhearingwasnotattributabletobadfaithbythestate.Becausethere < wasnoshowingofbadfaithbythestate,wereversethetrialcourtsorderandreinstatethe (x presentmentagainstthedefendant.#GXX#XXG d  Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCriminalCourtReversed  <   #GX#XX.GJames_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJosephM._Tipton_and  RobertW._Wedemeyer_,JJ.,joined.  DavidL.Hull,Knoxville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,HarryM._Nimmons_.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;MarkA._Faulks_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral; ` RandallE._Nichols_,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;KevinJamesAllen,AssistantDistrictAttorney L  General,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. 8!  Z@@OO& OPINION #GXX#XXG #`" #GXX #  XXG   ` ThedefendantwasarrestedonApril6,2000fortheoffenseswhichwerelatercharged $8 $ inthepresentmentthatisthesubjectofthisappeal.  #  1      ׀ApreliminaryhearingwasscheduledonMay %$!% 3,andonthatdatethehearingwascontinuedtoJune21.Thedefendanthadunrelatedmisdemeanor &"& chargespending,andonJune12,hiscounselwaspresentincourtwhenanemergencydeveloped '"' whichrequiredcounseltoleavethecourtroom.Afellowmemberofthebarspokewithanunknown (#( assistantdistrictattorneyondefensecounselsbehalf.Thismemberofthebararrangedforthe )$) defendantsmisdemeanorcasestobecontinueduntilJuly26for felonycourt.Thismemberof p*%*C _thebartestifiedthathedidnotspeakwiththeassistantdistrictattorneyaboutthefelonycase.On  June21,thestateappearedforthepreliminaryhearinginthefelonycase,butthedefensedidnot.  Defensecounselassumedthatbecausethemisdemeanorswereresetin felonycourtonJuly26,  thefelonycasewaslikewiseresetforthatdate,eventhoughthememberofthebarwhospokewith t thestateaboutcontinuingthemisdemeanorsdidnotrequestacontinuanceforthefelonycase. ` Curiously,thefelonywarrantbearsanotationthatthecasewasresettwotimes,forJune21andJuly L  26.ThegrandjuryreturnedthepresentmentinthefelonycaseonoraboutJune22. 8     ` Thedefendantthenmovedtodismissthepresentmentbecausehehadbeendenied  ` apreliminaryhearing.Afterconsideringtheevidenceofferedatahearingonthemotion,thetrial  L  courtfound, TheStatedidnotactinbadfaithinthiscase.Nevertheless,thecourtfoundthatthe  8  defendant, throughnofaultofhisown,[was]deniedhisfundamentalrightofapreliminaryhearing $  andthatthe spiritofTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure5(e)wassuchthatthedefendant   shouldnotbedeniedthatrightduetoamisunderstanding.Accordingly,thetrialcourtgrantedthe   motiontodismissthepresentment.      ` Inthis,thestatesappealofthatruling,thestatearguesthatthetrialcourtimproperly p dismissedthepresentmentabsentashowingofprosecutorialbadfaith. \  (83"3"  3A2  A  .3  0    RighttoPreliminaryHearing3Aq݌4(#(# Ќ     ` AnindividualchargedwithacrimeinTennesseehasarighttoapreliminaryhearing,  \ althoughthatrightderivesfromstatuteandrule,asopposedtoconstitutionalguarantees.Moorev. H State,578S.W.2d78,80(Tenn.1979);seeTennCodeAnn.4010101to113(1997) 4 ( PreliminaryExamination);Tenn.R.Crim.P.5.1( PreliminaryExamination).Thepurposeof   thepreliminaryhearingistodeterminewhetherprobablecauseexistsforthechargeagainstthe   defendant.Tenn.R.Crim.P.5.1.     ` TheRulesofCriminalProcedureprescribethetimingofthepreliminaryexamination  inrelationtograndjuryaction. l 8  IndictmentBeforePreliminaryExamination!Anydefendantarrestedpriorto D! indictmentorpresentmentforanyoffense,whethermisdemeanororfelony,except 0"  smalloffenses,shallbeentitledtoapreliminaryhearinguponthedefendant'srequest #l! therefor,whetherthegrandjuryofthecountybeinsessionornot.Ifthedefendant $X" isindictedduringtheperiodoftimeinwhichthepreliminaryhearingisbeing $D # continued,oratanytimebeforeaccusedhasbeenaffordedapreliminaryhearingon %0!$ awarrant,whetheratthedefendant'sownrequestorthatoftheprosecutor,the &"% defendantmaydismisstheindictmentuponmotiontothecourt.Provided,however, '#& that[sic]nosuchMotiontoDismissshallbegrantedaftertheexpirationofthirty (#' daysfromthedateofthedefendant'sarrest.)$(     |*%) TennR.Crim.P.5(e).The30daylimitationondismissalfoundinthelastphraseofRule5(e)is   limitedtothesituationinwhichallpartieshaveactedingoodfaithandincompliancewiththe  statute.Moore,578S.W.2dat82.Inotherwords,adefendantseekingdismissaloutsidethe30day  periodmayobtainreliefonlyifthestatehasactedinbadfaith.Seeid.;seealsoStatev.Jeffrey t CharlesMiddlebrook,No.1204(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Jan.31,1989)(itwasdefendants ` obligationtoensurethatstatespreviousagreementnottoseekindictmentpriortopreliminary L  hearingwouldcontinueforanothertwomonths),perm.app.denied(Tenn.1989). 8  "3"  3$2  B  .3  0    ApplicabilityofRule5(e) 3$2$݌ `(#(# Ќ     ` Attheoutset,wemustaddressthelanguageofRule5(e)intheuseofthewords  8   indictmentand presentment.Thefirstsentenceofsubdivision(e)definestherightto $  preliminaryhearingpriorto indictmentorpresentment.Tenn.R.Crim.P.5(e).Thesecond   sentenceconferstherightofadefendantwhois indictedpriortoapreliminaryhearingtohavethe    indictmentdismissed.Id.Werecognizethattherearesignificantdifferencesinthetwoformsof   charginginstruments.SeegenerallyStatev.JeffreyDwightWhaley,"S.W.3d.",No.E2000   00646CCAR3CD,slipop.at3(Tenn.Crim.App.,Knoxville,Dec.6,2000),perm.app.denied p (Tenn.2001).Thestatearguesonappealthatthedistinctionbetweenindictmentsandpresentments \ coupledwiththeabsenceoftheword presentmentinthesecondsentenceofRule5(e)supports H aconclusionthat apresentmentcannotbedismissedforanyreasonwhenacriminaldefendantis 4 deniedapreliminaryhearing,evenifthepresentmentisreturnedduringthependencyofthe  p preliminaryhearing.Inotherwords,adefendantagainstwhomapresentmentisreturnedpriorto  \ preliminaryhearinghasnoremedyunderRule5(e). H    ` Forpurposesofthisappeal,itisunnecessarythatweresolvethequestionwhether   Rule5(e)affordsthedefendantaremedyincasesinwhichapresentmentisreturnedpriortothe   preliminaryhearing.Thetrialcourtfoundthattherewasnobadfaithinthiscase,andforthereasons  discussedbelow,wearenotconvincedotherwiseuponappellatereview.WhetherRule5(e)does  notapply,asadvancedbythestate,orwhetherRule5(e)anditscorrespondingbadfaithanalysisdo  apply,asadvancedbythedefendant,thiscaseisnotoneinwhichthedefendantisentitledtorelief. l Therefore,weneednotresolvewhetherRule5(e)appliestocasesinwhichapresentmentisreturned X  beforethepreliminaryhearing. D! "3"  3.2  C  .3  0    ExistenceofBadFaith 3..݌#l!(#(# Ќ     ` WethereforeturntothequestionoftheresultassumingRule5(e)applies.Because $D # morethan30dayshadelapsedbetweenthedefendantsarrestandthereturnofthepresentment,the %0!$ questioniswhetherbadfaithattendedthepresentmentsreturn.SeeMoore,578S.W.2dat82. &"%    ` Inthatregard,theevidencedoesnotdemonstratethatthepresentmentsreturnand (#' thetimingofthereturnwereprecipitatedbybadfaithonthepartoftheprosecution.Thetrialcourt )$( correctlysofound,andonappeal,theevidencedoesnotcompelustodisturbthatfinding.See |*%) Whaley,slipop.at5.Notwithstandingthatfinding,however,thecourtreachedanincorrect h+&* conclusionoflawthatwemustdisplace.Thecourtbelievedthatithadtheauthoritytodismissthe  presentmentshortofabadfaithshowing.Asdiscussedabove,itdidnot.SeeMoore,578S.W.2d  at82.     ` Accordingly,wereversethetrialcourtsdismissalofthepresentmentandreinstate ` thecharginginstrument. L     `     h     ___________________________________  L     `     h     JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.,JUDGE