ÿWPCÜ µ‰qϾ;\XŠÿ€ü?‰HÏcÒz"s"/âíEÔ„ð…ÝÙ¼CŽBÜP~âYTà¬5ÑŠŸ¢EÑGÒ25ä‚EÜY b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ UN· w 4 z Ò— i x mz V‘ Æ“ ÆY Æ Æå N«N­ z¯Ò)Eû×ýYPÔI$m?uuuuuuuuuuuuu ‡‡ 0DbÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑÑ 0ëÙÙÙÙ BÄÄ 0¤á D3… D-¸ 0Kåå AS0ƃ 0¤I 0Dí A«1˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0»$„=,â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*bk1#¥ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ÍÝ ƒR´Â$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€also€note€that€the€standard€of€review€for€a€trial€Ô_ÔcourtððsÔ_Ô€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).G:\TECH\IB271T7\ADMIN\APPELL~1\ABCD.DAT ?Ý ƒR´Â$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€indicates€that€the€Defendant€would€be€sentenced€as€a€Range€II€offender.€€Thus,€the€maximumÐ ° Ðsentences€faced€by€the€Defendant€on€his€state€charges€total€fourteen€years,€eleven€months,€twenty„nine€days,€even€if€theyÐ tÄ Ðare€run€consecutively€to€each€other.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„13„102(d);€39„16„603(a)(3);€39„17„1307(b)(2);€40„35„Ð 8ˆ Ð111(e)(1);€40„35„112(b)(3),€(b)(5).€ YPG:\TECH\IB271T7\ADMIN\APPELL~1\ABCD.DATG:\TECH\IB271T7\ADMIN\Appellate Forms\abcd.dat££££££H_(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2´Â$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€]%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôó ò»»Ô d(|3|$££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€éXXdì»»d8Ñà@ttìàÔ‡îFT]%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼]%»îîFT #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àJune€26,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XéX»¼]%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼]%»XXé#ÔòòSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóHAROLD€LEONARD€WHITEÔ‡XéX»¼]%Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Knox€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€63235€€€€€€Richard€R.€Ô_ÔBaumgartnerÔ_Ô,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„01888„CCA„R3„CD€Ð ¥õ  ÐJanuary€29,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ‘á  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€Defendant€was€arrested€in€September€1996€for€aggravated€assault,€being€a€felon€in€possessionÐ xÈ  Ðof€a€firearm,€and€fleeing.€€His€case€was€not€set€for€trial€until€July€2000.€€The€Defendant€moved€forÐ d´ Ðdismissal€of€the€charges€on€the€ground€that€he€had€been€denied€his€constitutional€right€to€a€speedyÐ P  Ðtrial.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion,€and€the€State€now€appeals€as€of€right.€Ð <Œ ÐConcluding€that€the€trial€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion€in€finding€that€the€Defendant€wasÐ (x Ðprejudiced€by€the€delay,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.Ô#†¼]%»XXé#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼]%ÔÐ d ÐÓäÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Affirmedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼]%»àXé¦#ÔÔ‡XéX.¼]%ÔRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Ô_ÔTiptonÔ_Ôóó€andÐ Ä ÐòòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌMark€E.€Stephens,€District€Public€Defender;€Paula€R.€Voss€(on€appeal),€Assistant€Public€Defender;Ð ˆØ Ðand€Jim€D.€Owen€(at€trial),€Assistant€Public€Defender,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,Ð tÄ ÐHarold€Leonard€White.Ð `° ÐÔ#†¼]%»XXé‡#ÔÔ‡XéX»¼]%ÔÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Peter€M.€Ô_ÔCoughlanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐRandall€E.€Ô_ÔNicholsÔ_Ô,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Marsha€Ô_ÔSelecmanÔ_Ô,€Assistant€District€AttorneyÐ $"t! ÐGeneral,€for€the€Appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð #`" ÐÔ#†¼]%»XXé #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼]%ÔÌÓXÓà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼]%»XXéã #ÔÔ‡XéX»¼]%ÔÐ è$8 $ ÐÔ#†¼]%»XXéU #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XéX»¼]%ÔÔ% €( Ôò òó óÓÓà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àÌà@¥¥(ìàò òFACTSó óˆÐ À&"& ÐÌÓÓà  àLate€on€the€night€of€September€16,€1996,€Knoxville€police€officers€Dennis€Pack€andÐ ˜(è#( ÐLawrence€Ô_ÔPresnellÔ_Ô,€Jr.€were€called€to€Ô_ÔBonnymanÔ_Ô€Drive€to€investigate€reports€of€shots€being€fired.€Ð „)Ô$) ÐUpon€their€arrival€they€found€the€Defendant€and€a€white€male€arguing€with€each€other.€€The€policeÐ p*À%* Ðofficers€shined€their€flashlights€on€the€combatants€and€told€them€to€show€their€hands.€€The€whiteÐ \+¬&+ Ðâ âmale€complied;€the€Defendant€put€his€right€hand€behind€his€back€and€ran€off.€€The€Defendant€ran€toÐ H,˜',ý ÐÔ_Ôan€apartment€and€reached€to€open€the€storm€door.€€As€he€did€so,€Officer€Presnell€saw€a€pistol€in€oneÐ ° Ðof€his€hands.€€The€Defendant€fled€into€the€apartment€with€Officer€Pack€in€hot€pursuit.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àOfficer€Pack€testified€that€as€he€started€to€follow€the€Defendant€out€the€back€door€of€theÐ tÄ Ðapartment,€the€Defendant€pointed€a€pistol€at€him.€€Officer€Pack€withdrew,€but€kept€his€eyes€on€theÐ `° ÐDefendant.€€He€stated€that€the€Defendant€turned€around€and€appeared€to€be€"working€the€action€ofÐ L œ Ðthe€gun,"€referring€to€the€slide€portion€of€the€semi„automatic€pistol.€€Seizing€the€opportunity,€OfficerÐ 8 ˆ ÐPack€grabbed€the€Defendant€from€behind€and€wrestled€him€to€the€ground.€€The€Defendant€droppedÐ $ t Ðthe€pistol.€€After€the€officers€subdued€and€handcuffed€the€Defendant,€Officer€Pack€retrieved€the€pistolÐ  ` Ðwhich€the€Defendant€had€dropped.€€Officer€Pack€later€took€the€pistol€to€the€trunk€of€his€patrol€carÐ ü L  Ðwhere€he€removed€the€magazine€and€ejected€a€round€of€ammunition€from€the€chamber.€€TheÐ è 8  ÐDefendant€was€arrested€and€charged€with€aggravated€assault,€fleeing,€and€being€a€felon€in€possessionÐ Ô$  Ðof€a€firearm.€Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€was€also€charged€by€the€federal€government€with€being€a€felon€in€possessionÐ ˜è  Ðof€a€firearm.€€He€was€tried€and€convicted€by€a€jury€in€federal€court,€and€a€transcript€of€that€trial€wasÐ „Ô  Ðentered€into€evidence€during€the€hearing€of€the€speedy€trial€motion.€€The€transcript€of€the€federal€trialÐ pÀ Ðis€the€source€of€Officer€Packððs€testimony€that€is€summarized€above.€Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendant€was€placed€into€custody€in€the€Knox€County€jail.€€His€initial€state€courtÐ 4„ Ðappearance€was€scheduled€for€October€1,€1996,€at€which€time€lawyer€Laurie€Andrijeski€wasÐ  p Ðappointed€to€represent€him€on€the€state€charges.€€Because€the€Defendant€was€being€held€on€federalÐ  \ Ðcharges€and€the€appropriate€paperwork€had€not€been€completed,€the€Defendant€did€not€appear€for€hisÐ øH ÐOctober€1,€1996€court€date.€€Ms.€Andrijeski€testified€that€while€awaiting€his€federal€trial,€theÐ ä4 ÐDefendantððs€state€case€was€reset€for€November€7,€1996;€December€4,€1996;€and€January€9,€1997.€€Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àOn€January€8,€1997,€the€Defendant€was€convicted€in€federal€court€of€being€a€felon€inÐ ¨ø Ðpossession€of€a€firearm.€€He€was€subsequently€sentenced€to€three€hundred€months€in€prison€and€fiveÐ ”ä Ðyears€of€supervised€probation.€€Attorney€Andrijeski€testified€that€she€had€reached€a€ð ðgentlemanððsÐ €Ð Ðagreementðð€with€one€of€the€attorneys€in€the€District€Attorneyððs€office€that,€upon€the€DefendantððsÐ l¼ Ðconviction€in€federal€court,€the€state€charges€against€him€would€be€dropped.€€Accordingly,€sheÐ X ¨ Ðconsidered€her€obligations€on€the€case€to€have€been€completed€in€January€and€she€took€no€furtherÐ D!” Ðaction€on€the€Defendantððs€behalf€with€respect€to€the€state€charges.€€Attorney€Andrijeski€testified€that,Ð 0"€  Ðð ðafter€the€[federal]€conviction€came€down€.€.€.€my€understanding€was€that€the€[state]€charges€had€beenÐ #l! Ðdismissed.ðð€€She€further€testified€that,€had€she€known€the€State€was€going€to€pursue€the€charges,€sheÐ $X" Ðwould€have€demanded€a€preliminary€hearing,€and€ð ðreopened€negotiations€to€at€least€try€and€getÐ ô$D # Ðconcurrent€sentences.ðð€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àOn€June€9,€1997,€the€State€obtained€a€presentment€against€the€Defendant€regarding€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcharges€for€which€he€was€arrested€the€previous€September.€€A€capias€was€issued€on€June€16,€1997,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðbut€was€not€served.€€On€October€23,€1997,€the€Defendant€was€transferred€from€Knox€County€jail€toÐ )à$( Ðfederal€prison€in€Atlanta,€Georgia.€On€December€30,€1998,€while€in€federal€custody,€the€DefendantÐ |*Ì%) Ðreceived€a€classification€sheet€indicating€that€there€was€no€state€court€detainer€on€him€at€that€time.€Ð h+¸&* ÐOn€October€5,€1999,€the€Knox€County€Sheriffððs€Department€was€notified€by€the€Federal€Bureau€ofÐ ° ÐPrisons€that€the€Defendantððs€federal€presentence€investigation€report€indicated€outstanding€stateÐ œì Ðcharges.€€This€notification€triggered€the€Sheriffððs€Department€to€issue€a€detainer€on€the€DefendantÐ ˆØ Ðon€November€23,€1999.€€On€December€6,€1999,€the€Defendant€responded€to€the€detainer€by€assertingÐ tÄ Ðhis€right€to€a€speedy€trial€on€the€state€charges.€€On€March€24,€2000,€the€Defendant€was€transportedÐ `° Ðto€Tennessee€from€federal€prison€and€arraigned€on€the€state€charges€on€April€12,€2000.€€His€trial€wasÐ L œ Ðset€for€July€19,€2000.€€On€July€18,€2000,€the€day€before€the€case€was€set€for€trial,€the€trial€courtÐ 8 ˆ Ðgranted€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€the€presentment€ruling€that€the€Defendantððs€right€to€aÐ $ t Ðspeedy€trial€had€been€violated.Ð  ` ÐÌà@òò&ìàò òANALYSISó óˆÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àA€criminal€defendant€is€guaranteed€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial€by€our€federal€and€stateÐ À  Ðconstitutions€and€by€state€statute.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amend.€VI;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð€9;€Tenn.€CodeÐ ¬ü  ÐAnn.€ðð€40„14„101.€€The€right€to€a€speedy€trial€protects€the€accused€from€oppressive€pretrialÐ ˜è  Ðincarceration,€anxiety€and€concern€arising€from€unresolved€criminal€charges,€and€the€possibility€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€accusedððs€defense€will€be€impaired€by€fading€memories€and€the€loss€of€exculpatory€evidence.€Ð pÀ ÐòòSeeóó€òòDoggett€v.€United€Statesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€654€(1992);€òòState€v.€Simmonsóó,€54€S.W.3d€755,€758Ð \¬ Ð(Tenn.€2001).€€ð ðThe€right€to€a€speedy€trial€attaches€at€the€time€of€arrest€or€indictment,€whicheverÐ H˜ Ðcomes€first,€and€continues€until€the€date€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòState€v.€Vickersóó,€985€S.W.2d€1,€5€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð 4„ ÐApp.€1997).€€In€determining€whether€the€defendantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€has€been€compromised,Ð  p 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 øH ÐòòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,€530€(1972);€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83„85€(Tenn.€1973).€Ð ä4 Ðð ðThe€single€most€important€factor€is€whether€the€defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay,€and€the€mostÐ Ð  Ðimportant€issue€concerning€prejudice€to€the€defendant€is€the€impairment€of€the€ability€to€prepare€aÐ ¼  Ðdefense.ðð€€òòState€v.€Vanceóó,€888€S.W.2d€776,€778€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€To€trigger€the€òòBarkeróóÐ ¨ø Ðanalysis,€the€interval€between€accusation€and€trial€must€be€ð ðpresumptively€prejudicial.ðð€€òòDoggettóó,€505Ð ”ä ÐU.S.€at€651„52.€€A€delay€of€at€least€one€year€crosses€this€threshold.€€òòId.óó;€òòVickersóó,€985€S.W.2d€at€5.€Ð €Ð ÐÌÌà  àThe€trial€court€granted€the€Defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€his€case€on€the€basis€that€hisÐ D!” Ðconstitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial€had€been€violated.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€delay€betweenÐ 0"€  Ðthe€Defendantððs€arrest€and€his€trial€was€ð ðsignificantðð;€that€the€delay€was€caused€by€the€StateððsÐ #l! Ðð ðnegligenceðð;€that€the€Defendant€timely€asserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€after€receiving€notice€ofÐ $X" Ðthe€detainer;€and€that€the€Defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay.€€In€determining€that€the€DefendantÐ ô$D # Ðhad€been€prejudiced€the€trial€court€found€that€Ð à%0!$ ÐÓÓà  àà8 ` àhad€[the€Defendant]€been€timely€charged€in€the€state€court€.€.€.€heÐ Ì&"% Ðwould€have€been€in€a€position€to€negotiate€at€that€point€in€time€toÐ ¸'#& Ðresolve€all€of€his€cases€in€a€manner€that€would€have€given€him€anÐ ¤(ô#' Ðopportunity€to€run€his€sentences€concurrently.Ð)à$(` x` x ÐÓÓThe€trial€court€found€that€this€opportunity€was€ð ðnow€lost€to€him.ðð€€The€trial€court€also€found€€that€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐDefendant€was€now€unable€to€locate€a€witness€who€might€have€been€helpful,€and€that€the€lengthyÐ h+¸&* Ðdelay€ð ðhas€an€impact€on€a€lawyerððs€ability€to€.€.€.€properly€prepare€a€case€for€trial.ðð€€The€State€nowÐ ° Ðcontends€that€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€Defendant€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay€is€erroneousÐ œì Ðand€that€this€Court€should€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€ruling€and€remand€this€case€for€trial.Ð ˆØ Ðà  àÌà  àWe€use€the€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€WL€737780,€at€*€4€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Sept.€20,Ð $ t Ð1999);€òòState€v.€Jeffery€Jermaine€Hankinsóó,€No.€02C01„9806„CC„00170,€1999€WL€569576,€at€*€11Ð  ` Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Aug.€4,€1999);€òòState€v.€Roy€Dale€Wakefieldóó,€No.€01C01„9609„CR„Ð ü L  Ð00389,€1998€WL€19863,€at€*€2€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Jan.€21,€1998).׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€standard€ofÐ è 8  Ðreview€ð ðcontemplates€that€before€reversal€the€record€must€show€that€a€judge€ððapplied€an€incorrectÐ Ô$  Ðlegal€standard,€or€reached€a€decision€which€is€against€logic€or€reasoning€that€caused€an€injustice€toÐ À  Ðthe€party€complaining.ðððð€€òòState€v.€Coleyóó,€32€S.W.3d€831,€833€(Tenn.€2000)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Shirleyóó,Ð ¬ü  Ð6€S.W.3d€243,€247€(Tenn.€1999)).€€Alternatively,€ð ð[a]n€abuse€of€discretion€exists€when€the€reviewingÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€is€firmly€convinced€that€the€lower€court€has€made€a€mistake€in€that€it€affirmatively€appears€thatÐ „Ô  Ðthe€lower€courtððs€decision€has€no€basis€in€law€or€in€fact€and€is€therefore€arbitrary,€illogical,€orÐ pÀ Ðunconscionable.ðð€€òòState€v.€Brown€&€Williamson€Tobacco€Corp.óó,€18€S.W.3d€186,€191€(Tenn.€2000).Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àThe€Defendantððs€trial€was€set€for€July€19,€2000.€€€The€length€of€time€between€the€DefendantððsÐ 4„ Ðarrest€and€his€trial€was€therefore€three€years€and€ten€months.€€While€this€is€a€substantial€delay,€it€doesÐ  p Ðnot,€in€and€of€itself,€establish€a€constitutional€violation.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€òòVickersóó,€985€S.W.2d€at€7Ð  \ Ð(affirming€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€to€dismiss€for€lack€of€a€speedy€trialÐ øH Ðwhere€delay€was€three€years€and€nine€months).€€The€reasons€for€the€delay€must€therefore€beÐ ä4 Ðconsidered.€€The€possible€reasons€for€the€delay€of€a€defendantððs€trial€fall€into€four€categories:€€Ð Ð  ÐÓÓà  àà8 ` à(1)€€intentional€delay€to€gain€a€tactical€advantage€over€the€defense€orÐ ¼  Ðdelay€designed€to€harass€the€defendant;Шø` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` à(2)€€bureaucratic€indifference€or€negligence;Дä` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` à(3)€€delay€necessary€to€the€fair€and€effective€prosecution€of€the€case;Ð €Ð ÐandÐl¼` x` x Ðà  àà8 ` à(4)€€delay€caused,€or€acquiesced€in,€by€the€defense.ÐX ¨` x` x ÐòòÓÓId.óó€at€5„6.€€In€this€case,€the€trial€court€found€that€the€reason€for€the€delay€was€the€Stateððs€negligence,Ð D!” Ðand€the€record€supports€this€finding.€Prosecutorial€negligence€is€a€ð ðmore€neutralðð€reason€thanÐ 0"€  Ðdeliberate€delay€to€hamper€the€defense€and€should€therefore€be€weighed€less€heavily€against€theÐ #l! ÐState,€ð ðbut€nevertheless€should€be€considered.ðð€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531.€€And,€the€longer€the€delayÐ $X" Ðcaused€by€the€Stateððs€negligence,€the€more€heavily€this€factor€is€weighed€against€the€State.€€òòSeeóóÐ ô$D # ÐòòSimmonsóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€760.€€The€record€also€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€DefendantÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âasserted€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€within€two€weeks€of€receiving€notice€of€the€detainer€filed€againstÐ Ì&"% Ðhim.€€The€trial€court€gave€this€factor€little€weight.€€In€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€findings€on€the€firstÐ ° Ðthree€òòBarkeróó€factors,€then,€we€find€no€abuse€of€discretion.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWe€turn€now€to€the€pivotal€inquiry:€€did€the€trial€court€abuse€its€discretion€in€concluding€thatÐ tÄ Ðthe€Defendant€had€been€prejudiced€by€the€almost€four„year€delay€in€bringing€him€to€trial?€€Ð `° ÐÓÓà  àà8 ` àPrejudice,€of€course,€should€be€assessed€in€the€light€of€the€interests€ofÐ L œ Ðdefendants€which€the€speedy€trial€right€was€designed€to€protect.€€ThisÐ 8 ˆ ÐCourt€has€identified€three€such€interests:€€(i)€to€prevent€oppressiveÐ $ t Ðpretrial€incarceration;€(ii)€to€minimize€anxiety€and€concern€of€theÐ  ` Ðaccused;€and€(iii)€to€limit€the€possibility€that€the€defense€will€beÐ ü L  Ðimpaired.€€Of€these,€the€most€serious€is€the€last,€because€the€inabilityÐ è 8  Ðof€a€defendant€adequately€to€prepare€his€case€skews€the€fairness€of€theÐ Ô$  Ðentire€system.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐòòÓÓBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532€(footnote€omitted).€€We€acknowledge€that€the€Defendant€in€this€case€Ð ¬ü  Ðremained€incarcerated€because€of€his€federal€conviction.€€However,€as€the€Supreme€Court€hasÐ ˜è  Ðrecognized,€ð ða€man€already€in€prison€under€a€lawful€sentence€.€.€.€[subjected€to€a]€delay€in€bringingÐ „Ô  Ð[him]€to€trial€on€a€pending€charge€may€ultimately€[suffer]€as€much€oppression€as€is€suffered€by€oneÐ pÀ Ðwho€is€jailed€without€bail€upon€an€untried€charge.ðð€€òòSmith€v.€Hooeyóó,€393€U.S.€374,€378€(1969).€€TheÐ \¬ ÐCourt€recognized€two€reasons€that€an€incarcerated€accused€might€suffer€oppression€from€a€delay€inÐ H˜ Ðbeing€tried€on€pending€charges:€€the€possible€loss€of€an€opportunity€to€obtain€a€sentence€that€wouldÐ 4„ Ðrun€at€least€partially€concurrent€with€the€one€being€served,€and€the€possible€worsening€of€theÐ  p Ðconditions€under€which€the€existing€sentence€is€being€served.€€òòId.óó€€The€òòHooeyóó€court€also€recognizedÐ  \ Ðthat,€ð ðwhile€it€might€be€argued€that€a€person€already€in€prison€would€be€less€likely€than€others€to€beÐ øH Ðaffected€by€ððanxiety€and€concern€accompanying€public€accusation,ðð€there€is€reason€to€believe€that€anÐ ä4 Ðoutstanding€untried€charge€(of€which€even€a€convict€may,€of€course,€be€innocent)€can€have€fully€asÐ Ð  Ðdepressive€an€effect€upon€a€prisoner€as€upon€a€person€who€is€at€large.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€379.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€first€of€these€three€forms€of€prejudice,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÐ ”ä ÐDefendant€had€lost€an€opportunity€to€negotiate€a€plea€bargain€resolving€both€his€state€and€federalÐ €Ð Ðcharges€at€one€time.€€Specifically,€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€Defendant€had€lost€anÐ l¼ Ðopportunity€to€run€his€state€sentences€concurrently€with€his€federal€sentences.€€The€record€containsÐ X ¨ Ðadequate€support€for€this€conclusion.€€According€to€defense€counsel€Andrijeski,€she€would€haveÐ D!” Ðpursued€plea€bargain€negotiations€aimed€at€concurrent€sentences€had€she€realized€the€State€intendedÐ 0"€  Ðto€pursue€its€charges.€€Instead,€she€discontinued€her€representation€of€the€Defendant€on€the€stateÐ #l! Ðcharges€because€she€thought€the€charges€had€been€dismissed.€€Thus,€she€did€not€attempt€to€obtainÐ $X" Ðconcurrent€sentences€for€the€Defendant€on€his€state€and€federal€charges.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àòòóóWe€acknowledge,€as€the€State€points€out€in€its€brief,€that€the€Defendant€may€still€obtainÐ Ì&"% Ðconcurrent€sentencing€of€his€state€sentences€with€his€federal€sentence.€€Indeed,€the€trial€courtÐ ¸'#& Ðacknowledged€that€that€option€remained€available.€€Our€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure€provide€that,Ð ¤(ô#' Ðð ð[i]f€the€defendant€has€additional€sentences€or€portions€thereof€to€serve,€as€the€result€of€convictionÐ )à$( Ðin€other€states€or€in€federal€court,€the€sentence€imposed€shall€be€consecutive€thereto€òòunless€the€courtÐ |*Ì%) Ðshall€determine€in€the€exercise€of€its€discretion€that€good€cause€exists€to€run€the€sentencesÐ h+¸&* Ðconcurrently€and€explicitly€so€ordersóó.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€32(c)(2)€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€if€theÐ ° ÐDefendant€were€to€be€convicted€of€the€state€charges,€the€trial€court€would€retain€the€discretion€toÐ œì Ðorder€his€sentences€on€those€convictions€to€run€concurrently€with€his€thirty„year€federal€sentence.€Ð ˆØ ÐIn€that€event,€the€Defendant€would€spend€no€more€time€in€prison€than€he€would€have€had€he€beenÐ tÄ Ðtried€within€a€year€of€his€arrest.׃×Ý ƒ*#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€also€acknowledge€that€our€supreme€court€has€recently€held€thatÐ `° Ðð ðthe€lost€possibility€of€concurrent€sentencing€is€[not]€enough€in€and€of€itself€to€require€dismissal€onÐ L œ Ðspeedy€trial€grounds.ðð€€òòSimmonsóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€761.€€Nevertheless,€we€cannot€assume€that€anyÐ 8 ˆ Ðopportunity€the€Defendant€now€has€for€concurrent€sentences€is€equivalent€to€the€opportunity€he€mayÐ $ t Ðhave€had€in€1996„97.€€Therefore,€given€the€remaining€factors€present€in€this€case,€we€cannot€find€thatÐ  ` Ðthe€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€finding€that€the€Defendant€suffered€some€prejudice€in€the€lostÐ ü L  Ðopportunity€to€plea€bargain€his€state€charges.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€second€form€of€prejudice,€the€trial€court€correctly€found€that€theÐ À  ÐDefendant€suffered€no€worsening€of€the€conditions€of€his€imprisonment€as€a€result€of€the€unresolvedÐ ¬ü  Ðstate€charges,€or€that€he€suffered€anxiety€and€concern€concerning€the€state€charges.€€Indeed,€theÐ ˜è  ÐDefendant€contends€that€he€did€not€even€know€that€the€state€charges€were€still€pending€against€himÐ „Ô  Ðuntil€late€1999.€€Thus,€in€his€mind,€he€had€nothing€to€be€anxious€about.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€third€type€of€prejudice€which€an€accused€may€incur€by€a€delay€in€being€brought€to€trial€„„Ð H˜ Ðthat€the€accusedððs€defense€will€be€impaired€„„€is€ð ðthe€most€serious.ðð€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532.€€WithÐ 4„ Ðregard€to€this€concern€the€trial€court€found€prejudice€because€a€potential€witness€disappeared€in€JulyÐ  p Ð1997€and€because€the€lengthy€delay€ð ðhas€an€impact€on€a€lawyerððs€ability€to€.€.€.€properly€prepare€aÐ  \ Ðcase€for€trial.ðð€€The€trial€court€noted€that€the€Defendantððs€lawyers€had€the€transcript€of€the€federalÐ øH Ðtrial€to€assist€in€their€preparations,€but€found€that€the€transcript€did€not€cure€ð ðall€the€.€.€.€€potentialÐ ä4 Ðprejudice€in€this€case.ððÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€State€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€a€speedy€trial€violation€ð ðbecause€theÐ ¨ø Ðdefendant€has€shown€no€prejudice€whatsoever€in€the€delay.ðð€€We€must€point€out,€however,€thatÐ ”ä Ðð ðaffirmative€proof€of€particularized€prejudice€is€not€essential€to€every€speedy€trial€claim,ðð€becauseÐ €Ð Ðð ðexcessive€delay€òòpresumptivelyóó€compromises€the€reliability€of€a€trial€in€ways€that€neither€party€canÐ l¼ Ðprove€or,€for€that€matter,€identify.ðð€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€655€(emphasis€added).€€Moreover,€ð ðtheÐ X ¨ Ðpresumption€that€delay€has€prejudiced€the€accused€intensifies€over€time.ðð€€òòSimmonsóó,€54€S.W.3d€atÐ D!” Ð759.€€Thus,€ð ðour€toleration€of€[delay€caused€by€the€Stateððs]€negligence€varies€inversely€with€itsÐ 0"€  Ðprotractedness,€and€its€consequent€threat€to€the€fairness€of€the€accusedððs€trial.ðð€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.Ð #l! Ðat€657€(citation€omitted).€€€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThe€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€Defendantððs€defense€was€prejudiced€from€the€almostÐ à%0!$ Ðfour„year€delay€was€based€in€part€on€the€Defendantððs€present€inability€to€locate€a€potential€witness.€Ð Ì&"% ÐThe€alleged€witness€was,€apparently,€one€of€the€occupants€of€the€apartment€through€which€theÐ ° ÐDefendant€ran€as€he€tried€to€elude€the€police.€€The€record€establishes€that€the€Defendant€becameÐ œì Ðunable€to€contact€this€person€after€July€1997.€€The€trial€court€was€also€concerned€that€the€extensiveÐ ˆØ Ðdelay€impaired€defense€counselððs€ability€to€properly€prepare€the€Defendantððs€case€for€trial.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àWe€acknowledge€that€the€Defendant€has€not€demonstrated€any€òòparticularizedóó€trial€prejudiceÐ L œ Ðresulting€from€the€delay.€€Our€supreme€court€has€recognized,€however,€that€a€defendant€is€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðnecessarily€required€to€affirmatively€prove€particularized€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòSimmonsóó,€54€S.W.3d€atÐ $ t Ð760.€€On€the€contrary,€we€find€that€the€State€has€failed€to€persuasively€rebut€the€presumption€ofÐ  ` Ðprejudice€arising€from€the€lengthy€delay.€€òòSeeóó€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€658.€€Thus,€given€the€almost€fourÐ ü L  Ðyear€delay€in€this€case,€and€given€the€presumption€of€prejudice€attendant€upon€that€delay,€we€simplyÐ è 8  Ðcannot€say€that€the€trial€court€abused€its€discretion€in€concluding€that€the€Defendantððs€right€to€aÐ Ô$  Ðspeedy€trial€was€violated.€€That€is,€the€trial€courtððs€determinations€are€sufficiently€supported€by€theÐ À  Ðrecord€as€to€avoid€being€ð ðarbitrary,€illogical,€or€unconscionable.ðð€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€theÐ ¬ü  Ðjudgment€of€the€trial€court.Ð ˜è  Ðà  àÔ‡¼]%»XXéÔÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________Ð º  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àROBERT€W.€WEDEMEYER,€JUDGEÔ#†XéX»¼]%m#ÔÐ Ì Ð