WPCb Z\$Bs^Wp@8el@kQR7Ri#+|c#N-qleaI@تW.]8*PZpѺSzQE38FgPXͽ0nA0K)9n:4ix<%Ks#g8J &l`eR޺wezaL3}MM$I4xb?- O3G *u ldT }wÙQ{vcp"mX ןim%p5m,`i/IxlK̐-wd>'g.lp,d\ B<!K\/qrT%9c1ME`FѺ%-Ǜ;Rv 7cypSewI]KV$OI&o}c8GJg;}Qe;bbU#N\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1 0DN;=+"EMU@OUOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOObWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW 0____ BJJ 0g D3  D-> 0Kkk AS  0 0Ds A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    + J~'bk2;3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   RΚ$      1    _Ms._Donegan_sfatherandtheAppellantwerefirstcousins. ! RΚ$      2    _ItisobservedthatourDeceptiveBusinessPracticesstatuteiscontainedwithinthetheftprovisionsofChapter  14,OffensesAgainstProperty.(9 Z(Times New Roman  K RΚ$      3    _AreviewofthelegislativehistoryoftheDeceptiveBusinessPracticesstatuterevealsnoSentencing  CommissionCommentsotherthanthissingle_comment._  RΚ$      5    _Apparently,nocourtreporterwaspresentattrial,therefore,nostenographictranscriptionoftheevidenceis  available.Therecordincludesanarrativestatementoftheevidence,asprovidedbyRule24(c),TennesseeRules t AppellateProcedure.  RΚ$      4    _TennesseeCodeAnnotated674702(1),defining business,iscontainedwithintheprovisionsofthe  BusinessTaxAct.Tenn.CodeAnn.674701et.seq.AdoptionofthistermasdefinedbytheBusinessTaxActis t utilizedforpurposesofdefinitiononly. - -(|G2Κ$ !.89dd8         0   d(|3p$ !.89dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3p$ !.89dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.89dd8     _   98rXXdd8@tt09INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#90 #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsSeptember19,2001 L XrX9 #9XXr##STATEOFTENNESSEEv.LANEPULLEYXrX9  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWayneCounty  J @@No.12236RobertL.Jones,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002609CCAR3CDFiledDecember14,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      XrXXXrTheAppellant,LanePulley,wasconvictedbyaWayneCountyjuryforcommittingadeceptive x  businesspractice,aclassBmisdemeanor.Tenn.CodeAnn.3914127(a)(2).Theindictment d chargedthatthedeceptivepracticearosefromaverbalcontractfortherepairofavehicle.Overa P threeyearperiod,theowneroftheautomobilepaidPulleyatotalof$2,483.90forvariousrepairs < tohervehicle.Thevehiclewasneverreturnedtotheowner.Onappeal,Pulleyarguesthatthe (x evidencepresentedattrialfailedtoestablishanessentialelementoftheoffense,i.e.,thathewas d engagedintheautomobilerepairbusinessorthathisconductwiththevictimaroseinthecourseof P suchbusiness.Afterreview,weconcludethatPulleysconductviolatedtheprovisionsofthe < DeceptiveBusinessPracticesstatuteandtheproofislegallysufficienttosupporthisconviction. ( Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheWayneCountyCircuitCourtisaffirmed.#XrXX Xr##9XXr#XrX9   Tenn.R.App.P.3;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtisAffirmed.     #9Xr #XrX.9DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,P.J.,andJerry t L.Smith,J.,joined. ` R.H.Stovall,Jr.,AssistantPublicDefender,Columbia,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,LanePulley. 8!  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;ElizabethT. #`" Ryan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;T.MichaelBottoms,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJ.Doug #L# Dicus,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. $8 $ #9XXrx #XrX9I @@OO& OPINION #9XXr* #XrX9 '"' #9XXr #  XrX9 XrXXXr  InAprilof1994,Ruby_Donegan_Ԁboughta1985Buickfromherniecefor$500andhadthe )$) motorinthevehiclereplaced.Afterthemotorwasreplaced,Ms._Donegan_Ԁcontinuedtohave p*%* mechanicalproblemswiththecar.Ms._Donegan_Ԁheardthrough wordofmouththattheAppellant \+&+  wasagoodmechanicandcouldrepairhervehicle.Althoughthetwolivedsomedistanceapart,Ms. H,',3 _Donegan_ԀhadknowntheAppellantforsometimebecausetheywererelated._ #  1      _ԀShecontactedthe   Appellant,andheagreedtorepairhercarfor$500.    OnApril20,1995,theAppellant,whoresidedinHendersonCounty,drovetoMs._Donegan_s t residenceinWayneCounty.Oncethere,theAppellanttookpossessionofMs._Donegan_svehicle ` andreturnedittohisgarageinHendersonCountytobeginrepair.Ms._Donegan_ԀpaidtheAppellant L  $250,onehalfoftheagreeduponrepairprice.Severaldayslater,theAppellantcalledMs._Donegan_ 8  andexplainedthathefoundadditionalproblemswithhercar.TheAppellanttoldMs._Donegan_Ԁthat $ t hewouldneedmoremoneytocompletetheadditionalrepairsandMs._Donegan_Ԁsenthimacheck  ` intheamountof$354.OnApril30,1995,Ms._Donegan_ԀsenttheAppellantanothercheckfor$258.  L  Ms._Donegan_Ԁtestifiedthat,overaperiodofapproximatelythreeyears,shesenttheAppellantatotal  8  of$2,483.90torepairhercar.AlthoughMs._Donegan_Ԁrenewedthevehiclestagsinboth1995and $  1996,sheneversawthecaragain.OnDecember27,1997,Ms._Donegan_ԀcalledtheAppellantand   inquiredabouthervehicle.TheAppellantassuredherhewouldreturnthecartoherthefollowing   Monday,butneverdid.     TheAppellanttestifiedthathemadenumerousrepairstoMs._Donegan_svehicle,including p rebuildingthetransmission,replacingthewaterpump,andchangingthethermostat.Healso \ testifiedthathe hadamandowntheroadfixtheairconditioneronthecar.Aftermakingthese H repairs,theAppellantstatedthathecalledMs._Donegan_Ԁandtoldher tocomeandgethercarand 4 explainedtoherthathehaddoneallhecouldwithit.AccordingtotheAppellant,Ms._Donegan_  p statedthat shewastiredoffoolingwithit.Sometimelater,theAppellantmovedandhadthecar  \ towedtohissistersproperty.TheAppellantadmittedreceivingthecarforrepairandadmittedto H receivingthemoney,butstatedthathedidnotknow whathadhappenedtothecarafterhetookit 4 tohissistersproperty.   Ѐ      ANALYSIS       TheAppellantarguesthattheevidenceisinsufficienttosupporthisconvictionfor  committingadeceptivebusinesspractice. l   #XrXX Xr&#XrXXXrOnappeal,itisincumbentuponthedefendanttoestablishthattheevidencepresentedattrial D! wassodeficientthatnoreasonabletrieroffactcouldhavefoundtheessentialelementsofthe 0"  offensebeyondareasonabledoubt.Tenn.R.App.P.13(e)#XrXXXr#XrXXXr;Jacksonv.Virginia,443U.S.307,319, #l! 99S.Ct.2781,2789(1979);Statev.Cazes,875S.W.2d253,259(Tenn.1994),cert.denied,513 $X" U.S.1086,115S.Ct.743(1995).#XrXXXry# XrXXXrԀInthepresentcase,theindictmentchargedthattheAppellant did $D # unlawfullyandintentionally,knowingly,orrecklesslycommitanunlawfulanddeceptivebusiness %0!$ practice,towit:didacceptacarforrepair,waspaidforsaidrepairandthensoldthevehicle, &"% withouttheknowledgeoftheowner,RubyHazelDonegan,inviolationofTenn.CodeAnn.3914 '#& 127.Basedupontheindictmentinthiscase,theStatewasrequiredtoprove,beyondareasonable (#' doubt,thefollowingessentialelementsoftheoffense: )$( Ї8  (1)8`   thattheAppellant(intentionally,knowinglyorrecklessly)delivered  lessthantherepresentedquantityofanyservice;` x` x 8  (2)8`   thattheAppellantwasengagedintheautomobilerepairbusinessand t dealtwiththevictiminthecourseofbusiness;and`` x` x 8  (3)8`   thattheAppellantintendedtodeceivethevictim.8 ` x` x   TheAppellantsprincipalchallengetohisconvictionliesinhisargumentthattheStatefailed  ` toestablishthathewasengagedinthebusinessofrepairingautomobilesandthattheagreementto  L  repairMs._Donegan_svehiclearosewithinthecourseofthatbusiness.Theterm inthecourseof  8  businessisnotdefinedbytheDeceptiveBusinessPracticesstatute.TennesseeCodeAnnotated $  3911104providesthatcriminalstatutes shallbeconstruedaccordingtothefairimportoftheir   terms...topromotejustice,andeffecttheobjectivesofthecriminalcode. Themostbasic   principleofstatutoryconstructionistoascertainandgiveeffecttothelegislativeintentwithout   undulyrestrictingorexpandingastatutescoveragebeyonditsintendedscope.Owensv.State,908   S.W.2d923,926(Tenn.1995).Thelanguageofthestatute, withintenttodeceiveinthecourseof p business,reflectsitsbroadscope.Assuch,thislanguageistobegivenliberalconstructionsothat \ thebroadpurposeofthestatutemaybeeffected. H   TheDeceptiveBusinessPracticesstatute,asthenamesuggests,isdesignedtoprotect  p consumersagainstfraudandtopreventconductthatthreatensharmtothepublicinterest. #  2      ׀The  \ statutedoesnotapplytoeverybreachofcontractasitspurposeisnotmerelytoremedybad H bargaining.AstheSentencingCommissionCommentsnote,thestatuteisnotintendedtocover 4 casualpersonaltransactions. #  3      ׀Rather,thestatuteisintendedtoregulateonlyfraudulentbusiness   practiceswhichbytheirverynaturenecessarilyimplicateconsumerprotectionconcernsforthe   unwarypublic.    Althoughunrelatedtotheprovisionsofthecriminalcode,weadoptthedefinitionof   businessasprovidedbyTennesseeCodeAnnotated674702,whichaffordsafairimportofthe l term businessandwhichgivespropereffecttothelegislativeintent.Furthermore,courseof X  businessisdefinedassimplytheusualandnormalconductofbusiness.BlacksLawDictionary D! 356(7thed.1999).TennesseeCodeAnnotated674702(1)definesa businessinpertinentpart#XrXX Xr # XrXXXr 0"  as: #l! 8  Businessincludesanyactivityengagedinbyanyperson,orcausedtobeengaged %0!$ inbytheperson,withtheobjectofgain,benefit,oradvantage,eitherdirector &"% indirect.Businessdoesnotincludeoccasionalandisolatedsalesortransactionsby  apersonnotroutinelyengagedinbusiness. #  4         Moreover,weholdthat occasionalandisolatedtransactions,termsexcludedfromthedefinition t ofbusiness,comportwiththeSentencingCommissionCommentswhichstatesthatcasualpersonal ` transactionsarenotcoveredbythestatute.Finally,wewouldobservethatnodistinctionshouldbe L  madebetweena fulltimeanda parttimebusinessactivityasconsumerprotectionsconcerns 8  areequallyimplicated.Withtheseprinciplesestablished,we,inturn,examinetheproofintroduced $ t attrial.Ourtaskinthisregardissomewhatfrustratedbya_sparceness_Ԁoftheevidencewithinthe  ` record. #  5        L    Inthepresentcase,theAppellantwascharacterizedasa shadetreemechanicwhoworked $  onaparttimebasisinabuildingthathehadconvertedtoagaragebehindhishouse.TheAppellant    didnoadvertisingexceptbywordofmouth.ThevictimcontactedtheAppellantbecauseofhis   reputationasa goodmechanic.TheAppellanttestifiedthathe didmechanicworkforacardealer   inLexingtonandsomeelectricalwork.AdefensewitnesstestifiedthattheAppellantwasan    excellentshadetreemechanicwho didworkforthepublic.Withregardtothistransaction,the p proofestablishedthattheAppellantagreedtorepairthevictimsautomobilefor$500.The \ Appellantdrovetothevictimsresidenceandreturnedthecartohisgarageforpurposesofrepair. H DuringtheperiodofApril1994toDecember1997,thevictimpaidtheAppellantthesumof 4 $2,483.90uponassurancesthatherautomobilewouldberepaired.Thevehiclewasneverreturned  p bytheAppellantormadeavailableforreturntotheowner.Baseduponthesefacts,wefindtheproof  \ legallysufficienttoestablishthattheAppellantwasroutinelyengaged intheautomobilerepair H business.Moreover,wefindfromtheproofintherecordthatajurycouldhaverationally 4 concludedthattheAppellant,withtheintenttodeceive,deliveredlessthantherepresentedservice   agreedupon.Tenn.CodeAnn.3914127(a)(2).Accordingly,wefindtheprooflegallysufficient   toestablishtheAppellantsguiltforviolationoftheDeceptiveBusinessPracticesstatute.     CONCLUSION $D # Ї     BecausewefindtheAppellantwasengagedintherepairingofthevictimsvehicleduring  thecourseofbusiness,wefindtheevidencepresentedsufficienttosupporthisconvictionfor  committingadeceptivebusinesspractice.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentoftheWayne  CountyCircuitCourt. t #XrXX Xr0#   `     h     ___________________________________  8     `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE