WPC1 2"`V;ma_:? {*J[mn dL7zFB/aJe"/ʶ$c!@@8G0H&\ڈQ6o2= /*Sq!6NKi!kSƌt%4xvxXǀ_Wh'b6a5PkY% #0nݯ-=M~VcU^=jq7QA.>K:byןXE_q$Ui`^3~B V`Aub X0^>zy>:{Ń5Koʈw跁&C=K'ZecD2ރAv ]W2d`͒_ Tƶ0P8( "nBܼP@4!;e824r`#Us΢bK[wBP&Ek0LW#UN % 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0] 09 0 0 0 0 0 0X 0( 0 0 0 0~ 0Y 01 0 0 0 0s 0C< U>   -" 0k"""W#UN&E+' -'^ 5'wA'4E'Y'h' mj'U@' 0~' 0D?(?((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((( Bm1HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 60(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  ($    \  `&Times New Roman  3($USUS.,    1    _XXWedeclinetoapplyatthisjunctureinthepresentcaseanynotionthatthetrialcourthasaninherent  powertoholdpretrialconferences,apartfromRule17.1.Anysuchpowershouldnotbeusedtoencroachuponthe n powersandprerogativesofthedistrictattorneygeneralandthegrandjury#XuXe#. ##CXd#(C"$ !       | 3($USUS.,    3    _)XuXXX)X)XuTherevocationofbailisexceptedfromthevacatedprovisions,butnotbecausethiscourtisrulingupon  themeritsofthatlowercourtaction . Thereisbeforethiscourtnoissueofreviewofthemeritsofthelowercourts n bailrevocation,perse.SeeTenn.R.App.P.8.Rather,ouractionregardingthebailrevocationismerelyour ,| recognitionthatthelowercourtshandlingofthebailissuesismandatedbyCodesection4011104.#)e##XuXՄ#)XuXXXu)X)Xu#)##XuX#("  Z6Times New Roman Regular8q}&+ 6)ت3|xU(9 Z(Times New Roman (.(3($ !USUS.,      1  (%$  1    3($USUS.,    2    _)XuXXX)X)XuWedonotforeclosethepossibilitythatanarresteddefendantmayhaveapresentablespeedytrialclaim  thatmaturespriortothefilingofacharginginstrumentinthetrialcourt.SeeUnitedStatesv.Marion,404U.S. n 307,320,92_S.Ct_.455,463(1971)(speedytrialrightsarise"afterformalaccusation,eitherbyarrestorbygrand ,| juryaction");seealso,Statev.Gray,917S.W.2d668,673(Tenn.1996)(constitutionaldueprocessguarantees : providespeedytrialprotectionbetweencommencementofoffenseandcommencementofadversarialproceedings).    _We_Ԁalsodonotquestionthetrialcourtsauthoritytoappointcounselforanyoftherespondentswhomay $ t beindigent.Theprovisionsofourlawthatmandateandfacilitatetheappointmentofcounselforindigent  2 defendantsincriminalcasesdonotprecludecounselbeingappointedbeforeacharginginstrumentisfiled.   TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure44(a)providesthat [_e]very_Ԁindigentdefendantshallbeentitledtohave ^   assignedcounselinallmattersnecessarytothedefenseandateverystageoftheproceedings,unlessthedefendant  l  executesawrittenwaiver.(emphasisadded);seealsoTenn.CodeAnn.4014202(a)(1997)(authorizingthe  *  appointmentofcounselforindigentdefendantsin allfelonycaseswithoutrequiringthepriorfilingofacharging    instrument).Iffornootherreasonforcounseltobeappointedbeforethereturnofanindictment,werecognizethe V  possibleneedforcounseltoservethedefendantinanappropriatecaseontheissueofpretrialbail.#)XuX)Մ##XuXX)Xue#XXu#XuX՞# d !USUS.,  _IXX!II$z  8uXXdd8    ?+ ` hp x X?#!XuX!I=#!>X!Xu#>!>\#!>>INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @..ATKNOXVILLE . #!XuX!>L#!IX!Xu#I!I#!IIAssignedonBriefsAugust22,2001 N #!XuX!IF##XuXX!Xu#!XuXXXu#XuXX!Xu$# IXXu!IISTATEOFTENNESSEE#!XuX!Ij##XuXX!Xu#IXXu!IIԀv.KERMIT_PENLEY_,_JAMA_Ԁ_PENLEY_Ԁ  B ЀandANGELA_CUNNIFF_  P #!XuX!I##XuXX!Xu#!XuXXXu#XuXX!Xua#!XuXXXuAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforGreeneCounty  D No.01-CR-043JamesEdward_Beckner_,Judge  *  #XuXX!Xu#)XuXXXu@@*AV*) ` dE<` A   @@No.% + E200101386CCAR10CD   %+-AV*) ` dE<L` A M #XuXX)Xu#!XuXXXu      #XuXX!Xu#2XuXXXuTheStateofTennesseehasappliedtothiscourtforpermissiontopursueaninterlocutory (x appealpursuanttoTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure10.Initsapplication,theState ^ complainsthatbecausethegrandjuryhadyettotakeactiontochargetherespondentsin D connectionwithahomicide,theGreeneCountyCircuitCourtwasnotempoweredtoconduct * pretrialconferences,toenterpretrialorders,tosetatrialdate,ortoorderthestatetofileits  noticeofintenttoseekthedeathpenaltyorlifewithoutpossibilityofparole.WegranttheRule  10appealandgenerallyvacatethelowercourt'spretrialconferenceorders.        @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @  @p  @  @   @x  @  @  @`  @  @ Tenn.R.App.P._10;_ԀOrdersoftheCircuitCourtvacatedinpart,affirmedinpart. X   JamesCurwoodWitt,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,P.J.and $t JosephM.Tipton,J.,joined.  Z PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGenereal&Reporter,JenniferL.Smith,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,  &  fortheappellee,StateofTennessee ! ! SusannaLawsThomas,Newport,Tennessee,fortheappellee,KermitPenley. ## FrancisXavierSantore,FrancisX.Santore,Jr.,Greeneville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Jama T% % Penley. :&!& WilliamLouisRicker,WilliamHallBell,Greeneville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,AngelaMichelle (V#( Cunniff. (<$)   OPINION *&+       ` Murderchargesagainstthethreerespondents,KermitPenley,JamaPenley,and ,'- AngelaCunniff,wereboundovertotheGreeneCountyGrandJuryonMarch2,2001.Apparently j-(. becausethestateisawaitingtheresultsofsomeforensictests,ithasyettoseekanindictmentfrom  thegrandjury.Despitetheabsenceofanindictmentoranyothercharginginstrument,onMay18,  2001,thetrialcourtheldapretrialconferenceandenteredapretrialorderinwhichitsetthe"case" | fortrialonSeptember17,2001,imposeddiscoverydeadlines,andestablishedaMay25,2001 b deadlineforthefilingofanynoticeofintenttoseekthedeathpenaltyorlifewithoutpossibilityof H parole(hereinafterreferredtoasa"noticeofintent").Thestatefiledexceptionstothecourtsorder . ~ andmovedforacontinuanceandaninterlocutoryappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.(9).Italsofiled  d "underprotest"anoticeofintent.Thetrialcourtpartiallydeniedthecontinuanceanddeniedthe  J Rule9request.ThestatethenfiledwiththiscourtonJune11,2001thecurrentRule10application  0 andaskedforastayofproceedingsinthetrialcourt.       ` Whiletheapplicationandstayrequestwereunderreview,theapplicationwas   supplementedtoreflectthat,onJune28,2001,thetrialcourtheldasecondpretrialconferenceand, x  onJuly2,2002,itenteredanewpretrialschedulingorderinwhichit"severed[the]matters"and ^  resetthemfortrialsonseparateJanuarydates.Thecourtalsoestablished,interalia,adetailed D  discoveryschedule,plea-bargainingandmotionsdeadlines,anda"gagorder."TheJuly2orderalso *z  revokedtherespondentspretrialbondsandstatedthatthe"Courtstronglysuggeststhatthecases ` bepresentedtotheGrandJuryinDecember." F    ` Thestatepositsthatthetrialcourtwaswithoutauthoritytoconductpretrial  conferencesandtoentertheresultingpretrialschedulingorders.Italsocomplainsthatthetrialcourt  hadnobasisforcompellingthestatetofileitsnoticeofintent.Itassertsthat,indenyingits"motion  forrelieffromthepre-trialorder...,thelowercourtsofardepartedfromtheacceptedandusual t courseofjudicialproceedingsastorequireimmediatereview."SeeTenn.R.App.P.10(a). Z    ` Throughseparatecounsel,JamaPenleyandAngelaCunniffhaverespondedtothe &v statesapplication.Inherresponse,Penleytakes"nopositionregardingtheStatesapplication,"but  \ shepositsthatthepretrialordersmaybe"incontraventionoflaw"andquestionsthevalidityofa B pre-indictmentnoticeofintenttoseekthedeathpenalty.Sherequeststhiscourttoorderthedistrict ( attorneygeneraltoexpeditiouslypresenthercasetotheGreeneCountygrandjury.     ` RespondentCunniffrespondedtotheapplicationbysingularlyaddressingthenotice   ofthestatesintenttoseekthedeathpenalty.Essentially,sheagreeswiththetrialcourt"obliging" p!  thestatetofilethenoticebecauseitqualifiedherfortheappointmentof"capitalcase"counsel. V"!    ` RespondentKermitPenleyfilednoresponse. "$r#    ` Subsequenttothesupplementationoftheapplication,thiscourtstayedthe %>!% proceedingsinthetrialcourtandorderedthatatranscriptofthatcourtsJune28pretrialconference &$"& befiled.ThetranscriptwasfiledonAugust3,2001. ' #'    `     h      `    I.ActionontheApplication. )$)    ` WenowdeterminethatthestatehasestablishedabasisforaRule10appeal.We R+&+ granttheappealandproceedtodisposeoftheissuesraised. 8,', Ї   `    II.DispositionoftheAppeal.     ` WerecognizethataTennesseecircuitorcriminalcourt,beingthecourtexercising | generaltrialjurisdictionovercriminalcasesinTennessee,hasorganizationalandadministrative b authorityoverthegrandjury.AgeneralsessionscourtinTennesseehasauthoritytobindcriminal H casesovertothegrandjury"ifprobablecausebefound,"Tenn.CodeAnn.40-4-101(5)(1997). . ~ Thegrandjury,inturn,operateswithintheaegisofthecircuitorcriminalcourt.SeeTenn.R.Crim.  d P.6(a)(providingproceduresforthecircuitorcriminalcourtsimpaneling,swearingin,and  J charginggrandjuriesandauthorizingthecourttoformspecialgrandjuries);Tenn.CodeAnn.  0 40-12-101(1997)(authorizingcourttoimpanelgrandjuries),40-12-103(1997)(authorizingjudges    ofthecircuitorcriminalcourtstoreconvenegrandjuries),40-12-105(1997)(providingforthe    circuitcourtclerktopublishnoticesofmeetingsofthegrandjury),40-13-108(1997)(providingfor   thereturnoftheindictment"tothecourt"),40-13-109(requiringindictmentsforfelonyoffensesto x  beenteredintothecourtsminutes);seealsoTenn.Const.artVI,8("Thejurisdictionofthe ^  Circuit,ChanceryandotherInferiorCourts,shallbeasnowestablishedbylaw,untilchangedbythe D  Legislature.")Thetrialjudgeappointsthegrandjuryforeperson.Tenn.R.Crim.P.6(g). *z  Obviously,thetrialcourt,beingthecircuitorcriminalcourtasthecasemaybe,hasresponsibility ` fororganizing,impaneling,instructing,andprovidingleadershipforthegrandjury.Inonesense, F then,mattersboundovertoagrandjurydwellwithinthebosomofatrialcourt.Moreover,weare , cognizantofan"inherentcommonlawpowerof[a]trialcourttocontrolitsownjurisdictionand  docket."SeeStatev._Benn_,713S.W.2d308,310(Tenn.1986).     ` Thatsaid,atrialcourtsroleinenablingtheactivitiesofthegrandjurydoesnot t empowerittobecomeinvolvedinthebusinessofthatbody.See,e.g.,Stanleyv.State,171Tenn. Z 406,104S.W.2d819(1937)(grandjuryisabodyactingindependentlyofthecourtandthedistrict @ attorneygeneral).Specificprovisionsofourlawillustratehowthetrialcourtisconstrainednotto &v actonmattersthatremaininuterowiththegrandjury.  \    ` Thefirstsuchconstraintthatwementionconcernsprosecutorialprerogative.The ( proprietyandscopeofprosecutingdefendantsforthecommissionofcriminaloffensesareentrusted  tothedistrictattorneygeneral.SeeTenn.Const.art.VI,5;Tenn.CodeAnn.8-7-103(1),(2),  (4)(1993)."TheDistrictAttorneyGeneralsdiscretiontoseekawarrant,presentment,information,   orindictmentwithinitsdistrictisextremelybroadandsubjectonlytocertainconstitutional p!  restraints.TheDistrictAttorneyGeneralandonlytheDistrictAttorneyGeneralcanmakethe V"! decisionwhethertoproceedwithaprosecutionforanoffensecommittedwithinhisorherdistrict." <#" Ramseyv.TownofOliverSprings,998S.W.2d207,209(Tenn.1999)(internalcitationsomitted). "$r# "Nocourtmayinterferewith[thedistrictattorneygenerals]discretiontoprosecute,andinthe %X $ formulationofhisdecision,heorsheisanswerabletonoone."Pacev.State,566S.W.2d861,867 %>!% (Tenn.1978);seeQuillenv.Crockett,928S.W.2d47,51(Tenn.Crim.App.1995).Eventhough &$"& thelegislaturemayenactproceduresfortheformationandoperationofgrandjuries,neitheritnor ' #' thecourts,whichthemselvesenabletheactivitiesofthegrandjuries,may"impedetheinherent (#( discretionandresponsibilitiesoftheofficeofdistrictattorneygeneralwithoutviolatingArticleVI, )$) 5oftheTennesseeConstitution."Statev.SuperiorOil,875S.W.2d658,661(Tenn.1994). l*%*    ` Thedistrictattorneygeneralsdiscretionto"proceedwithaprosecution"obviously 8,', entailsdiscretionaboutwhen!orif!acaseshouldbepresentedtothegrandjury.SeeTenn.Code  Ann.8-7-103(4)(1993),40-13-304(1997).Inthepresentcase,thegrandjuryhasyettoactupon  therespondentsbound-overcases.Wegleanfromtherecordavailabletousthatthelackofaction | maystemfromtheprosecutorsdesiretoprepareandpresentevidencethatrequirestimeforforensic b evaluation.Wecannotdiscernwhetherthenatureoftheforensictestingissuchthattheresultsmight H influencethedistrictattorneygeneralnottoprosecute,butthatisnoconcernofours.Thecase . ~ remainswithinthedistrictattorneygeneralsdiscretiontodetermine"whethertoprosecute,and  d whatchargetobringbeforeagrandjury."SeeSuperiorOilat660.Althoughwediscernthatthe  J trialcourt,throughitsschedulingorders,deadlineforfilingmotionsandnoticesofintent,trial  0 settings,andsuggestionstoobtainanindictment,laudablyintendedtofacilitateitsdocketby    expeditingthesecases,wemustrespectfullyconcludethattheseorderprovisionsinvadethedistrict    attorneysdomain.      `    ` Second,notonlydotheconferencesandordersimpingeuponthedistrictattorney D  generalsdiscretionarydomain,buttheyareincongruentwiththeinherentauthorityand *z  independenceofthegrandjury.InTennessee,agrandjuryhasthepower"toreturnapresentment ` ofallindictableoffensesfoundtohavebeencommittedortobetriablewithinthecounty."Tenn. F R.Crim.P.6(d)."Thatpowerenablesthegrandjurytoactindependentlyofacourtandthedistrict , attorneygeneralbyinstitutingacriminalactionbyvirtueofapresentment."SuperiorOil,875  S.W.2dat661(emphasisadded);seeStatev.Marks,3Tenn.Crim.App.539,542,464S.W.2d326,  328(1970)(holdingthatcourtmaynotabateindictmentbecauseitisbaseduponhearsayevidence,  courtobservesthatthe"grandjurybeinganagencyofourgovernment...mayactindependent[sic] t ofthecourtandthedistrictattorney"(citingStanleyv.State,171Tenn.406,104S.W.2d819 Z (1937));seealsoCarrollv.State,517S.W.2d13,16(Tenn.Crim.App.1974).Thepowervested @ inthegrandjuryisconstitutionallybased.SuperiorOil,875S.W.2dat661;seeTenn.Const.art. &v I,14.  \      ` Furthermore,thegrandjuryspoweroveranindictmentthatisrequestedbythe ( districtattorneygeneralisindependentofthedistrictattorneygeneral.Heorsheassiststhegrand  juryby"givinglegaladviceastoanymatterscognizable"bythegrandjury,butneitherthedistrict  attorneygeneralnoranyother"officerorperson"maybepresentwiththegrandjury"whenthe   questionistakenuponthefindingofanindictment."Tenn.R.Crim.P.6(h);seeTillerv.State,600 p!  S.W.2d709,712(Tenn.1980);Marks,3Tenn.Crim.App.at542,464S.W.2dat328.Thus,after V"! thedistrictattorneygeneralorhisorherassistantleavesthegrandjuryroom,thedecisionwhether <#" tovoteanindictment!andpresumablythepaceofmakingthatdecision!isamatterofthegrand "$r# jurysprerogative,asinthecaseofvotingapresentment. %X $    ` Theindependenceofthegrandjuryrequiresthatcourtsnotrushthatbodyto &$"& judgment.Itmaywellbethat,inthepresentcase,thegrandjuryhasnotyetconsideredthe ' #' respondentscases,butontheotherhand,thecourtsarenotreallyprivilegedtoknowthat,unless (#( thegrandjuryhasreportedonthematter.Proceedingsbeforethegrandjuryaresecret.Tenn.R. )$) Crim.P.6(k);Statev.Hodge,695S.W.2d544,546(Tenn.Crim.App.1985).Itfallstoneitherthis l*%* courtnoratrialcourttoknowthestatusofanygivenmatterinthebosomofthegrandjury. R+&+  8,', $z $8uXXdXXd8 $     ` Perhapsthelowercourtsdeadlineforfilinganoticeofintentinapotentialhomicide  caseandsettingtrialdatesdonoteffectuatecontroloverthegrandjury,butonemaysurmisethat  theseorderscouldmanipulategrandjurorswho,asmembersofthepublic,maywellreadorhearin | thenewsmediaaccountsofthefilingofanoticeofintentin,orthesettingfortrial,caseswhichthey b asagrandjuryareyettohear.Forinstance,inthepresentcase,thegrandjurorswhomeetto H considerthepresentmattersinDecembermaybeperplexedtodiscoverthatthecasesarealreadyset . ~ tobetriedonlyafewweeksfollowingthegrandjurymeeting.Somegrandjurorscouldassumethat  d theyareexpectedtovoteforanindictment.  J    ` Ifsomeinitiativeofjudicialpolicyisinordertogovernsituationsastheonebefore    us,wedefertooursupremecourttoestablishsuchpolicy.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.16-3-501(1994)    (supremecourtempowered"withgeneralsupervisorycontroloveralltheinferiorcourtsofthe   state").Inthepresentcase,however,webelievetheeffectofthetrialcourtsordersistoencroach x  uponthepowersofthegrandjury. ^     `    ` Third,ourruleauthorizingpretrialconferencesandpretrialordersincriminalcases *z  providesthattheconferencemaybeheldat"anytimeafterthefilingoftheindictment,presentment ` orinformation."Tenn.R.Crim.P.17.1(emphasisadded).Inthepresentcase,neitherthepretrial F conferencesnorgenerallytheresultingordersareauthorizedbyRule17.2.# 4%  1      ׀ , .,ndthed   ` 2vFinally,wenotethatRule12.3(b)providesforthefilingofanoticeofintent"when  acapitaloffenseischargedintheindictmentorpresentment."Tenn.R.Crim.P12.3(emphasis  added).Inthepresentcase,thetrialcourtinfluencedthestatetofileitsnoticeofintentbeforethe t filingofanyindictmentorpresentment.WemustagreewiththestatethatthetermsofRule12.3 Z protectitfrombeingforcedtofilethenoticeatthisearlystageoftheproceedings. @    ` Atrialcourtdoesnotassumeplenarycontroloverthecaseuntilthedecisiontocharge  \ hascomeintofruitionintheformofacharginginstrument.Quillen,928S.W.2dat51.Indeed,the B trialcourtsjurisdictiontoactinthematter,apartfromthequestionofbailwhichweaddressbelow, ( iscommencedwhenthecharginginstrumentissuesandisreturnedtothetrialcourt.SeeStatev.  Hammond,30S.W.3d294,30304(Tenn.2000)(avalidindictmentconfersjurisdictionuponthe  trialcourt);Dykesv.Compton,978S.W.2d528,529(Tenn.1998);seeTenn.R.Crim.P.12(a)(the   lead"pleading"inacriminalcaseinthetrialcourtistheindictment,presentment,orinformation). p!  Inthepresentcase,thetransitionfromprosecutorialdiscretiontothetrialcourtsjurisdictionhasyet V"! tooccur. <#"    ` Wepointout,however,thatTennesseelawadmitsanexceptiontotheforegoing %X $ principlethatthetrialcourtisnotauthorizedtoactwithrespecttomatterspendingbeforethegrand %>!% jury.&!&$"2&$"&!Inquestionsofbail,thegeneralsessionscourtjudgeormagistratehasauthoritytodetermine &$"& theconditionsofbail"atanytimepriortooratthetimethedefendantisboundovertothegrand ' #' jury,"andthecircuitorcriminalcourthasauthorityforsuchadetermination"atanytimepriorto  convictionorthereafter."Tenn.CodeAnn.40-11-104(1997).Thus,whereasthemagistrated2d's  authoritytodeterminebailmattersendsafterthecaseisboundover,thetrialjudgehasauthorityin | bailmatters"atanytimepriortoconviction,"includingthetimeduringwhichthematterispending b beforethegrandjury.6 4%  2      ׀ H    `     h   III.Conclusion.  d \   ` Baseduponalloftheforegoingprinciplesandrules,weholdthat,asofthetimethe  0 trialcourtacted,iterredinconductingpretrialconferences,issuingschedulingorders,severingthe    defendants,settingthecasesfortrial,establishingadeadlineforfilingthenoticesofintent,and    takingtheotheractionsoutlinedinthetwosentencingorders,withtheexceptionoftakingaction   withrespecttotherespondentspretrialbail. x     ` Insummary,wegrantthestatesRule10application.Withtheexceptionofthetrial D  courtsrevocationofpretrialbailcontainedwithinitsJuly2,2001order,theprovisionsofthat *z  courtsMay18andJuly2,2001pretrialconferenceorderswillbevacated.(  4%  3      ׀.`2`.Inordertofully ` effectuatethevacatingofthepretrialconferenceordersofthecourtbelow,thenoticesofintentto F seekthedeathpenaltyorlifesentencewithoutpossibilityofparolepreviouslyfiledbythestateare , stricken.Upontheissuanceofthemandateofthiscourtsaction,thestaypreviouslyimposedby  thiscourtwillbevacated.  #XuXX2Xu[#!XuXXXuo;!X!Xu   `     h     ___________________________________ t    `     h     JAMES_CURWOOD_Ԁ_WITT_,JR.,JUDGE @  l Ї#!XuX![c##XuXX!Xu%c#