WPC4< E_쫁Rs_EbȢCORp( ,f_#|@*bOIdUw(/J;Q.A4H|׬맙zՇ\VhT6۱+-R's^a)azVJ7BGW(Z*xヒڐ1+G zD.SZC.Y0u 4[8P~Ҟ¸y $2ŭWBKh#,;FK-OAޏF򠾜fHYs^-Ns"߿Z ?>7+\Iʋ!lpYMcocrˆ MFR0eSǤ|͌avpa)+li#ILYo#͊i!QYMrpvs$Tm샸/ . p~S_  ';8(ΫÃӫ2yD:Z 9hUN % 0# l  ^ z X X * m, wC G  4_NsU+@u 0UE    0# 0   0 0 0   0 0 [ c 0k 0C? 0 0Y ^- 0 0D\ 0 0nb9 0A 0  0 0@ 0 0 0s! 0A" 0 # 0# 0$ 0[% 00& 0<H& 0& 0>B' 0v' 0`' 0`V( 0`( 0`) 0`v) 08) 0* 02* 0+ 0:, 0YH, 0_, 0 - 0j . 0t/ B*0 D/"1 0Q1 0 2 D/3 04 064 B5 015 096 D56 D-17 0K^7 0:7 AS768 08 0D9 A: 0^: 0< ;U6H;U>~;U*; 0N;("  Z6Times New Roman Regular($ ..8d d 8    \\IB27S11T\stats1,,,,0C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\CUSTOM~1\OPINION3.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\Custom WP Templates\opinion3.wptS-s  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.wptULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5$w%-(I Z(Times New Roman *+ (_2623  ..3|x1*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2*A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  45*8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  89*2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ?\Appellees Attorney Name & Appellee's Name.*AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (#$  0  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  - -*8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Kd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7P(X7  ?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dO)1dxd<:zTop of For7S(X7  ?f%2A`Arial?  Se\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7(I2B$ !G|.8G|dXXd8         0   G|ԀO)2dxd0KS.SampleKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong  d8dl6TypewriterKd<6X9`(Courier NewKSe\  `&Times New RomanS(3a$ !G|.8G|dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  42Variable^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3a$ !G|.8G|dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial(O$ !Wl.8Wldd8     _   WlWl8XXdd8=Wldd=@ W WlINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#WlW h#Ԉ &   November14,2002Session L XXWl#WlXXM# %  STATEOFTENNESSEE%v.ALANL.ADLER%  % XXWl J  AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  ^ Ѐ#WlXX#%  XXWlCircuitCourt%%  % for_Fayette_ԀCounty  J @@No.4945JonKerryBlackwood,Judge#WlXX#  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A J  XXWl@@TTNo.% # W200100178SCR11CD%#]#WlXX(#XXWlԀFiledDecember30,2002 m  AV) ` dE<` A E     #WlXX#XXWlTheappellant,AlanL.Adler,wasindictedforaggravatedchildneglectofachildundersixyearsof , age,aClassAfelony.Followingtrial,a_Fayette_ԀCountyjuryconvictedhimofthelesserincluded  offenseofrecklessendangerment,aClassAmisdemeanor.Subsequently,theappellant,pursuant  toTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4032101(section4032101),petitionedthetrialcourtto  expungeallpublicrecordspertainingtohisindictment,prosecution,andtrialfortheaggravatedchild  neglectcharge.Aftertheappellant'spetitionwasgrantedbythetrialcourt,theStateofTennessee x appealedpursuanttoTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure3(c)(Rule3(c))andarguedthatAdler d wasnotentitledtoexpungementundersection4032101becausehewasconvictedofalesser P includedoffense.WegrantedthisappealtodetermineiftheStateisauthorizedunderRule3(c)to < appealatrialcourt'sexpungementorder.Afterexaminingthefactsandthelawpertinenttothis (x issue,weholdthattheStateisnotpermittedtoappealatrialcourt'sexpungementorderasofright d pursuanttoRule3(c).Nevertheless,treatingtheState'sappealasawritofcertiorari,wealsohold P thattheappellantwasentitledinthiscasetoexpungementofallpublicrecordspertainingtothe < felonychargeofwhichhewasacquitted. ( #WlXX#XXWl] % $ %$y #WlXXE #XXWlTenn.R.App.P.11;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsReversedandCase "! RemandedtotheCircuitCourtfor_Fayette_ԀCounty#WlXX #XXWl  #"   #WlX#XX.WlWilliamM.Barker,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichFrankF._Drowota_#WlX#XX.Wl,III,C.J., `% $ andE.RileyAnderson#WlX#XX.Wl,_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,andJaniceM.Holder,JJ.,joined. L&!% RobertL.Hutton,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,AlanL.Adler.#WlXXU#XXWl $(t#' % ) %)PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral#WlXX^#XXWl;KimR. )L%) Helper,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;ElizabethT.Rice,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andRyanD. *8&* Brown,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.#WlXX'#XXWl +$'+ #WlXXI#XXWl@@OO& OPINION #WlXX# -(- _ԇ XXWlSTATEMENTOFTHECASE     ӀThedefendantappellant,AlanL.Adler,wasindictedinFayetteCountyfortheoffenseof  aggravatedchildneglectofachildundersixyearsofage.Attrial,thejurywasinstructedon t aggravatedchildneglectofachildundersixyearsofage(aClassAfelony)andthelesserincluded ` offensesofchildneglect(aClassDfelony)andrecklessendangerment(aClassAmisdemeanor). L  Followingdeliberation,thejuryfoundthedefendantnotguiltyofeitherfelony,butguiltyof 8  misdemeanorrecklessendangerment.Thetrialcourtsuspendedallbuttwodaysoftheappellant's $ t ninemonthsentence,andhewasreleasedafterservingfortyeight(48)hoursinjail.Subsequently,  ` theappellantsuccessfullypetitionedtheCircuitCourtforFayetteCounty,pursuanttosection4032  L  101,"toorderallpublicrecordspertainingtothearrestindictment,prosecutionandtrial...for  8  aggravatedchildneglect,andsimplechildneglectbeexpunged."Onappeal,theCourtofCriminal $  Appealsreversedthetrialcourt'sexpungementorderandheld:1)thatundertheauthorityofState   v.McCary,815S.W.2d220(Tenn.Crim.App.1991),theStatecouldappealanunfavorable   expungementorderasofrightunderRule3(c);and2)thattheappellantwasnotentitledtohavethe   recordsofthegreaterchargesexpungedbecausehewasconvictedofalesserincludedoffense.     ANALYSIS \  I.THESTATE'SAPPEALASOFRIGHTUNDERTENNESSEERULEOFAPPELLATE 4 PROCEDURE3(C)  p       TheappellantarguesthattheCourtofCriminalAppealserredinreviewingtheState'sappeal H ofthetrialcourt'sexpungementorderunderRule3(c).Specifically,theappellantclaimsthatthe 4 State'sabilitytoappealasofrightisstrictlylimitedtotheinstancessetforthinRule3(c),which   provides:   ` `  AvailabilityofAppealasofRightbytheStateinCriminal  Actions .Incriminalactionsanappealasofrightbythestatelies  onlyfromanorderorjudgmententeredbyatrialcourtfromwhichan  appealliestotheSupremeCourtorCourtofCriminalAppeals:(1) p thesubstantiveeffectofwhichresultsindismissinganindictment, \  information,orcomplaint;(2)settingasideaverdictofguiltyand H! enteringajudgmentofacquittal;(3)arrestingjudgment;(4)granting 4"  orrefusingtorevokeprobation;or(5)remandingachildtothe  #p! juvenilecourt.Thestatemayalsoappealasofrightfromafinal  $\" judgmentinahabeascorpus,extradition,orpostconviction $H # proceeding. %4!$ ` ` (Emphasisadded).TheappellantassertsthatbecauseRule3(c)doesnotincludeanorderof & "% expungementamongthoseinstanceswhereinanappealasofrightbytheStateispermitted,theState ' #& hadnoauthoritytoappealtheexpungementorderasofright. (#'   Conversely,whileconcedingthattheexpresslanguageofRule3(c)doesnotspecifically )$( authorizetheStatetoappealanexpungementorderasofright,theStatecitestotheCourtof *%) CriminalAppealsdecisionofStatev.McCaryforsupportforitsposition.McCaryaddressed l+&* whetheracriminaldefendantcouldappealasofrightatrialcourt'sdenialofanexpungementorder  underTennesseeRuleofAppellateProcedure3(b)(Rule3(b)).ThelanguageofRule3(b)issimilar  toRule3(c)inthatitveryclearlyenumeratesthespecificcircumstancesinwhichadefendantis  authorizedtoappealasofrightinacriminalaction.NoneoftheseenumeratedinstancesinRule t 3(b)wouldallowadefendanttoappealasofrightatrialcourt'sdenialofanorderofexpungement. ` Nevertheless,inMcCary,theCourtofCriminalAppealsheldthatthefailureofRule3(b)toprovide L  foranappealfromthedenialofanexpungementorderwas"apparentlyanoversightinthedrafting 8  oftherulessincethestatuteestablishingjurisdictioninthisCourtapparentlyanticipatesthatallfinal $ t judgmentsarisingoutofcriminalcasesareappealable."815S.W.2dat221.Becauseofthis  ` perceivedoversight,theCourtofCriminalAppealsheldinMcCarythatadefendantcouldappeal  L  thedenialofanorderofexpungementunderRule3(b).  8  Ѐ  BecauseMcCarygrantedcriminaldefendantsanappealasofrightunderRule3(b),theCourt   ofCriminalAppealsintheinstantcaseheldthatinfairnesstheStateshouldhaveasimilarright   underRule3(c)because"whatisgoodforthegooseisgoodforthegander."Sincenoapplication   forpermissiontoappealwasfiledinMcCary,thisCourthasnotpreviouslyhadtheoccasionto   examinewhethertheStateoracriminaldefendantmayappealunderRule3anunfavorableruling p involvinganexpungementorder.Wetakethatopportunityatthistime. \   AsthisCourtstatedinHillv.CityofGermantown,31S.W.3d234,23738(Tenn.2000), 4 "whereastatuteiswithoutcontradictionorambiguity,thereisnoneedtoforceitsinterpretationor  p construction...."Additionally,wheninterpretingstatutes,thisCourthasroutinelyfollowedthe  \ Latinmaximofexpressiouniusestexclusioalterius,meaning"theexpressionofonethingimplies H theexclusionofallthingsnotmentioned."Limbaughv.CoffeeMedicalCenter,59S.W.3d73,84 4 (Tenn.2001);seealsoD&EConst.Co.v.RobertJ.DenleyCo.,38S.W.2d513,519(Tenn.2001).   ThisCourthasalsodeterminedthatsuchrulesofstatutoryconstructionare"applicableinconstruing   rulesgoverningthepracticeandprocedureofthecourt."Statev.Peele,58S.W.3d701,704(Tenn.  2001)(citingStatev.Brewer,989S.W.2d349,355n.4(Tenn.Crim.App.1997)).    Applyingtheserulestotheinstantcase,itisclearthatRule3(c)grantstheStatetheauthority l toappealasofrightonlyinalimitednumberofcircumstances.Theplainlanguageoftherule X  enumeratesthesixinstancesinwhichtheStatemayappealasofrightandstatesthattheyarethe D! "only"instancesthatgivetheStatesucharight.Tenn.R.App.P.3(c).Moreover,bylistingthe 0"  specificcircumstancesthatgivetheStatetherightofappealunderRule3(c),therule"excludesother #l! [circumstances]thatarenotmentioned."Peele,58S.W.3dat704.Additionally,notingthatinthe $X" pastthisCourthasexaminedAdvisoryCommitteeCommentstoaidinitsinterpretationofcourt $D # rules,seeGannv.Burtin,511S.W.2d244,246(Tenn.1974),wefinditrevealingthattheAdvisory %0!$ CommissionCommenttoRule3(c)statesthat"theruleprovidesthatappealsasofrightlieonlyin &"% thosecircumstancesspecifiedinthesubdivision."(Emphasisadded). '#&   Furthermore,wedisagreewiththelanguageinMcCarysuggestingthatitwasanoversight (#' onthepartofthedraftersofRule3infailingtoprovidefortheappealofanunfavorableruling )$( concerninganexpungementorder.Thestatuteallowingfortheexpungementofpublicrecords, |*%) currentlysection4032101,becameeffectiveonJuly1,1973.Bycontrast,Rule3oftheTennessee h+&* RulesofAppellateProcedurebecameeffectiveJuly1,1979,pursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated  sections16112to16118(1977).Wheninterpretingstatutes,thisCourtnotesthat"theLegislature  ispresumedtohaveknowledgeofitspriorenactmentsandtoknowthestateofthelawatthetime  itpasseslegislation."Wilsonv.JohnsonCounty,879S.W.2d807,810(Tenn.1994);Neffv. t CherokeeIns.Co.,704S.W.2d1,4(Tenn.1986).Weagreewiththeappellantthatthesame ` presumptionshouldapplytothisCourtwhenitdraftsproceduralruleswhichareapprovedbythe L  GeneralAssembly.BecausetheexpungementstatutewasineffectatthetimeRule3became 8  effective,wemustconcludethatthisCourtandtheGeneralAssemblyspecificallychosetoallow $ t neithertheStatenoracriminaldefendantanappealasofrightunderRule3fromanunfavorable  ` rulingconcerninganexpungementorder.  L    BecauseoftheplainandunambiguouslanguageofRules3(b)and3(c),weconcludethat $  neithertheStatenoracriminaldefendanthastheauthoritytoappealasofrightanunfavorableruling   concerninganexpungementorderunderRule3.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminal   Appealsisreversed.TotheextentthatMcCaryisinconsistentwiththisopinion,itisoverruled.     Nevertheless,despitethefactthatRule3(c)failstoauthorizetheStatetoappealasofright p thegrantingofanexpungementorder,theStateurgesthisCourttopermittheappealtoproceedas \ apetitionforawritofcertiorari.ThecommonlawwritofcertiorarihasbeencodifiedinTennessee H CodeAnnotatedsection278101(2000)(section278101).Section278101provides: 4 ` ` Thewritofcertiorarimaybegrantedwheneverauthorizedbylaw,  p andalsoinallcaseswhereaninferiortribunal,board,orofficer  \ exercisingjudicialfunctionshasexceededthejurisdictionconferred, H orisactingillegally,when,inthejudgmentofthecourt,thereisno 4 otherplain,speedy,oradequateremedy.Thissectiondoesnotapply   toactionsgovernedbytheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.   ` ` Generally,thewritofcertiorariislimitedinapplicationanddoesnotnormallylietoinquireintothe  correctnessofajudgmentissuedbyacourtwithjurisdiction.Statev.Johnson,569S.W.2d808,815  (Tenn.1978). However,wehavepreviouslynotedthatanappellatecourtiswithinitsprovinceto  grantawritofcertiorari"[w]heretheactionofthetrialcourtiswithoutlegalauthority."Id.(citing p Statev.Gant,537S.W.2d711(Tenn.Crim.App.1975)).TheStatemaintainsthatthetrialcourt's \  grantingoftheappellant'smotionforanorderofexpungementwaserroneousbecausetheappellant H! wasconvictedofalesserincludedoffense,renderingtheexpungementstatuteinapplicable.Ifthe 4"  State'spositioniscorrect,thenthetrialcourtwasactingcontrarytothelawingrantingthe  #p! appellant'spetitionforexpungement.Becausethisappealinvolvesanallegationthatthetrialcourt  $\" actedwithoutlegalauthorityandbecause"thereisnootherplain,speedy,oradequateremedy,"we $H # willtreattheState'sappealasthatofawritofcertiorari.Accordingly,wewilladdresswhetherin %4!$ grantingtheappellant'spetitiontoexpungepublicrecords,thetrialcourtactedwithoutlegal & "% authorityincontraventionoftheexpungementstatute. ' #&   II.THEEFFECTOFLESSERINCLUDEDOFFENSECONVICTIONSONTHE (#' EXPUNGEMENTSTATUTE )$(     *%)   TheauthorityofTennesseetrialjudgestograntordersofexpungementderivesfromsection   4032101whichprovides:  ` `  Destructionorreleaseofrecords .(a)(1)Allpublicrecordsofa  personwhohasbeenchargedwithamisdemeanororafelony,and x whichchargehasbeendismissed,oranotruebillreturnedbyagrand d jury,oraverdictofnotguiltyreturnedbythejury,andallpublic P  recordsofapersonwhowasarrestedandreleasedwithoutbeing <  charged,shall,uponpetitionbythatpersontothecourthaving ( x jurisdictioninsuchpreviousaction,beremovedanddestroyed  d withoutcosttosuchperson....  P  ` ` (Emphasisadded).Giventhathewasacquittedofthemoreseriouscharges(aggravatedchild  <  neglectandchildneglect),theappellantassertsthatheshouldbeentitledtohavetherecordsofthose (  chargesexpungedbecausethejuryfoundhimnotguiltyofthosecharges.Conversely,theState   claimsthattheword"charge"insection4032101(a)(1)embracesalllesserincludedoffenses.The   StateassertsthatbecauseAdlerwasconvictedofalesserincludedoffense,theoriginalchargehas   notbeendismissed,norhasanotguiltyverdictbeenreturned,renderingtheexpungementstatute   inapplicabletotheappellant. t   WebeginbynotingthatalthoughthisisanissueoffirstimpressionbeforethisCourt,the L CourtofCriminalAppealshasdealtwithsimilarissuesinvolvingtheexpungementstatute.InState 8 v.Liddle,929S.W.2d415,415(Tenn.Crim.App.1996),adefendant,whowaschargedwithsix $t separatecountsofaggravatedsexualbatterywithinasingleindictment,agreedtopleadguiltytoone ` countinexchangefortheprosecutorenteringanolleprosequiontheremainingfivecounts.After L thetrialcourtdeniedthedefendant'spetitiontohavetherecordforthefivedismissedcounts 8 expunged,theCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthetrialcourtandorderedthatthefivedismissed $ countsbeexpungedpursuanttosection4032101.Id.Additionally,inEslickv.State,942S.W.2d  559(Tenn.Crim.App.1996),thedefendantwaschargedinafourcountindictmentwithoffenses  includingfelonymurder,aggravatedrape,andaggravatedkidnaping.Thejuryultimatelyfoundthe  defendantnotguiltyofthemoreseriousfelonymurderandaggravatedrapecharges.However,the  trialcourtrefusedtograntthedefendant'smotiontoexpungetherecordofthosecharges.Noting p themandatorynatureoftheexpungementstatute,theCourtofCriminalAppealsreversed,holding \  that"thetrialcourthasnodiscretionrelativetoexpungingpublicrecordsforchargesresultingina H! dismissaloranacquittal."Eslick,942S.W.2dat560. 4"    ThisCourthaspreviouslystated"thatourprimarygoalininterpretingstatutesis'toascertain  $\" andgiveeffecttotheintentionandpurposeofthelegislature.'"Stewartv.State,33S.W.2d785,791 $H # (Tenn.2000)(quotingGleavesv.CheckerCabTransitCorp.,15S.W.3d799,802(Tenn.2000)). %4!$ Wehavealsonotedthatthebestexpressionoflegislativeintentisthenaturalandordinarymeaning & "% ofthelanguageusedbytheGeneralAssemblyinthestatute.SeeLipscombv.Doe,32S.W.3d840, ' #& 845(Tenn.2000);Mooneyv.Sneed,30S.W.3d304,306(Tenn.2000).ThisCourthaspreviously (#' describedthepurposeoftheexpungementstatuteasbeing"topreventacitizenfrombearingthe )$( stigmaofhavingbeenchargedwithacriminaloffense,wherehewasacquittedofthechargeor *%) prosecutionofthechargewasabandoned."Statev.Doe,588S.W.2d549,552(Tenn.1979) l+&* (overruled,inpart,bystatute)(emphasisadded).Wenotethattheword"charge"inthiscontextis  notdefinedinthestatute,noranywhereelseintheTennesseeCode.However,Black'sLaw  Dictionary(6thed.1990)defines"charge"inthecriminalsettingas"thespecificcrimethedefendant  isaccusedofcommitting." t   Intheinstantcase,thejuryfoundtheappellantnotguiltyonthechargeofaggravatedchild L  neglect,whichwasthespecificcrimehewasaccusedofcommitting.Thejuryalsodeclinedto 8  convicttheappellantofchildneglect.TheoffenseforwhichAdlerwasconvicted,reckless $ t endangerment,thoughalesserincludedoffenseofaggravatedchildneglect,seeStatev.Honeycutt,  ` 54S.W.3d762(Tenn.2001),isclearlynotthesame"charge"asaggravatedchildneglectfor  L  purposesoftheexpungementstatute.Accordingly,weholdthatadefendantwhoisconvictedofa  8  lesserincludedoffenseoftheoffensesoughtintheindictmentorpresentmentisentitledtohavethe $  recordexpungedofanygreatercharge(s)forwhichthejuryfindsthedefendantnotguilty.Under   section4032101,wearepersuadedthattheappellantisentitledtohaveallpublicrecordsofhis   aggravatedchildneglectandchildneglectchargesexpunged.WearemindfulthatifthisCourtwere   toholdotherwise,itwouldbepossibleforaprosecutortopermanentlyharmadefendantby   significantlyovercharginghimorher,avalidconcerngiventhepursuitofleverageintheplea p bargainingprocess.Wethinkthatitwouldruncountertothelegislature'sintentiftheexpungement \ statute,designedtopreventcitizensfrombeingunfairlystigmatized,couldbesoeasilytrumpedby H anoverzealousorvindictiveprosecutor.   4     Lastly,theStatehaspositedthattheremaybecaseswheretheoriginalchargeandlesser  \ includedoffenseforwhichadefendantisconvictedaretoointertwinedtomakeexpungementofthe H recordpracticalorevenpossible.Whiletheremaybeacaseinthefuturewhereexpungementwould 4 notbeappropriate,thisisnotsuchacase.     CONCLUSION         WeconcludethatRule3oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProceduredoesnotpermit  eithertheStateoracriminaldefendanttoappealasofrightanunfavorablerulingregardinganorder l ofexpungement.Furthermore,weconcludethatacriminaldefendantwhoisconvictedofalesser X  includedoffensethanthatsoughtintheindictmentorpresentmentisentitled,underTennesseeCode D! Annotatedsection4032101,tohavetherecordsexpungedforeveryoffenseinwhichthejuryfound 0"  thedefendantnotguilty.ThiscaseisremandedtotheCircuitCourtforFayetteCountysothatthe #l! originalordergrantingtheappellant'spetitionforexpungementmaybereentered. $X"     CostsofthisappealaretaxedtotheStateofTennessee. %0!$    `     h      p _____________________________ '#&    `     h      p WILLIAMM.BARKER,JUSTICE#WlXX?#