WPC[ g#nCӆGz_5M*U/T-XXS곑Lvu-֚Sɳ m$'+(֢{!%z=hHb@Ww-[\ia "?Wۮe6Qs?sFb&PB3U$ Kv8$7YK~=\I(?Nx/K?>l=k 1Tifߓ/T6w'/֧@N{IpgoQ}*qIVVoy7"l^5 tcX:š`>)[ZlH]IG$R MD_hۥ5CnNs&j-Bcu˕rjE S<,)L7;S%M!6| R1 #! ,0n U\IT*# LW %_ 0Pew@4 UFUF^ 0 + 0Dc y  O   s  'O0 U: B AQJ 0D 0DT 0D D/ B  D3(HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh X((L$X  I J K [L M UN -O P DQ Ӏ[ u[%3|x[ <4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular }  qF$X `   1    Tenn.Const.art.VI,11.(D(3qF$ L!X    `   0  (#$  0      qFX @  `   3    Tenn.CodeAnn.3917417(a)(4)(1991).    qFX @  `   4    Tenn.CodeAnn.5311451(1991&Supp.1997).  (  }  qF$X `   1    Tenn.Const.art.VI,11.    qFX @  `   2    U.S.Const.amends.V,XIV;Tenn.Const.art.I,10. E   qFX @  `   6    BlackmonsdoublejeopardyissueiscontrolledbyStuart   which,infairnesstoourbrethren,wasreleasedsubsequenttotheCourtofCriminalAppealssopinioninthiscause.    qFX @  `   3    Tenn.CodeAnn.3917417(a)(4)(1991).    qFX @  `   2    U.S.Const.amends.V,XIV;Tenn.Const.art.I,10.    qFX @  `   4    Tenn.CodeAnn.5311451(1991&Supp.1997).    qFX @  `   5    BlackmonwasrepresentedbyMarkHenderson,apublic   defender.BlackmonarguesthatbecauseHendersonwasapublicdefender,hewasastateagentandcouldnotwaiveBlackmonsconstitutionalright.BlackmonreliesuponHamiltonv.State,218   Tenn.317,320,403S.W.2d302,303(Tenn.1966),whichstates evenifconsenttowaivethisconstitutionalrightofdefendantwerepermissible,defendantwasrepresentedinthisconsentbythePublicDefender,aStateagent.BecauseweholdthatBlackmondidnotconsenttothewaiver,weneednotaddressthemeritsofthiscontention. E   qFX @  `   6    BlackmonsdoublejeopardyissueiscontrolledbyStuart   which,infairnesstoourbrethren,wasreleasedsubsequenttotheCourtofCriminalAppealssopinioninthiscause.    qFX @  `   5    BlackmonwasrepresentedbyMarkHenderson,apublic   defender.BlackmonarguesthatbecauseHendersonwasapublicdefender,hewasastateagentandcouldnotwaiveBlackmonsconstitutionalright.BlackmonreliesuponHamiltonv.State,218   Tenn.317,320,403S.W.2d302,303(Tenn.1966),whichstates evenifconsenttowaivethisconstitutionalrightofdefendantwerepermissible,defendantwasrepresentedinthisconsentbythePublicDefender,aStateagent.BecauseweholdthatBlackmondidnotconsenttothewaiver,weneednotaddressthemeritsofthiscontention.    ""  X\AXX X9XX\A   Ad FILEDX\AX9  December21,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular d!"#$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1  ((' dxdP Pd'dxd L!X      7/XXdd7Q Q TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  [ Q r )<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rQ [ [ [ [ Q Q [ [ [ [ [ [ t )>.*jxw` `@E ` 8ttxP tߛ[ @DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@tt)DATNASHVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE  )FORPUBLICATION   Ѐ `     h     ) \   ` Appellee   h     )FILED:DECEMBERO 21O P 14P ,1998 2   `     h     )v. `     h     )SUMNERCOUNTY j   `     h     )BOBBYVINCENTBLACKMON    )HON.JANEWHEATCRAFTand   Ѐ  )HON.FREDA.KELLY,III `   ` Appellant   h     ) p   Judge 6  `     h     )̀ `        )NO.01S019709CR00187 n ForAppellant:   h     ForAppellee: H  MARKW.HENDERSON h     JOHNKNOXWALKUP !h Nashville,TN   h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter ">  `   `     h     MICHAELE.MOORE `     h     SolicitorGeneral `     h     DOUGLASD.HIMES `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h     Nashville,TN `     h     LAWRENCERAYWHITLEY `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     DEEDAVIDGAY `     h     KATHIPHILLIPS `     h     AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     Gallatin,TN `     h     @,DOPINIONREVERSEDINPART,AFFIRMEDINPART p      x  BIRCH,J. \9.8  X/XX X  2:/9W _PoN `  WegrantedpermissiontoappealpursuanttoTenn.R.App.P.11totheappellant,BobbyVincentBlackmon,inordertodeterminewhether,andifso,underwhatcircumstances,therighttobetriedbyajudgewhois# X/XXX/ #X/XX X/constitutionallyqualifiedN  N N N  #  1      ׀canbe  waived.WeaddressalsotheappellantscontentionthatthejudgmentofforfeitureenteredagainsthisvehicleseizedincidenttohisarrestonApril20,1993,constitutes punishment,N K K N suchasϜH resultthatsuchH wouldviolateI theI N K K N constitutionalprohibitionsN fN N fN  #  2      ׀againstdouble @  jeopardy. `  Followingacarefulconsiderationoftheissues,weconcludethatadefendantcan,indeed,waivetherighttoaconstitutionallyqualifiedjudge.Inthecaseunderreview,however,therecorddoesnotsupportawaiverofthisright.Wefindalsothatthereisnodoublejeopardyviolationintheforfeitureproceedings.# X/XXX/#X/XX X/  I   `  BlackmonwasarrestedinSumnerCountyforpossessionofaScheduleIIcontrolledsubstancewithintenttosell.N  N N N  #  3      ׀His +p!( vehiclewasconfiscateduponarrestandlaterforfeitedJ toJ J byJ theState.N N N N  #  4       T/$,  1t&.  `  JudgeJaneWheatcraft,thenajudgeoftheGeneralSessionsCourt,conductedBlackmonspreliminaryhearing.Atitsconclusion,shefoundprobablecauseandboundthechargestothegrandjury,andthedefendantwasindicted.BythetimethecasewassetforjurytrialonFebruary14,1995,JudgeWheatcrafthadbecomeJudgeoftheCriminalCourtforSumnerCounty.Inthatcapacity,sheconductedBlac# X:NXXX:N#X:NXX X:Nkmonstrialontheindictedcharges.   ThejuryconvictedBlackmon,buthehasnotyetbeensentencedonthisconviction. `  BlackmonfiledamotionforarrestofjudgmentonMay25,1995,# X:NXXX:N#X:NXX X:NԀseekingtoinvalidatetheconviction.Heinsistedthatit d violatedTenn.Const.art.VI,11,becauseJudgeWheatcrafthadconductedhispreliminaryhearingandbondreductionhearinginGeneralSessionsCourtandlaterconductedhistrialinCriminalCourt.JudgeWheatcraftheardthemotiononJune20,1995,andenteredanordergrantingBlackmonanewtrial.JudgeWheatcraftenteredanorderofrecusalfromallfurtherproceedingsinthiscause. `  OnJuly18,1995,theStatefiledanapplicationforpermissionforaninterlocutoryappealinanefforttovacatetheordergrantinganewtrial.JudgeWheatcraftgrantedtheStatesrequestforaninterlocutoryappealonthejudgequalificationissue.JudgeFredA.Kelly,sittingbydesignation,consideredBlackmonsmotiontodismissforanallegeddoublejeopardyviolation.Heoverruledthatmotionandgrantedthemotionforaninterlocutoryappealonthedoublejeopardyissue. 7$-6 Ї `  Oninterlocutoryappeal,theCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedtherulingawardingBlackmonanewtrialandreinstatedtheconviction.ThecourtheldthatBlackmonscounselN N N N  #  5      ׀waivedthe  X benefitofTenn.Const.art.VI,11,therebyvestingJudgeWheatcraftwithjurisdictiontoconductthetrial.Additionally,thecourtaffirmedtheorderoverrulingBlackmonsmotiontodismisstheforfeitureondoublejeopardygrounds,relyingonthedecisionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinUnitedStatesv. @  Ursery,518U.S.267,116S.Ct.2135,135L.Ed.2d549(1996). `  # X:NXXX:N&#X:NXX X:N  II   `  Wehaveaddressedthejudgequalificationissuebefore.InStatev.Henderson,442S.W.2d629(Tenn.1969),# X:NXXX:N~#X:NXX X:NtheCourtheld H  thattheconstitutionalrighttoaconstitutionallyqualifiedjudgecouldbewaived.TheCourtbaseditsdecisionontheclearlanguageofTenn.Const.art.VI,11,whichprovides: NoJudgeoftheSupremeorInferiorCourtsshallpresideonthetrialofanycause...inwhichhe[orshe]mayhavepresidedinanyinferiorCourt,exceptbyconsentofalltheparties.Further,Tenn.CodeAnn.172101(4)(1991)provides: Nojudgeorchancellorshallbecompetent,exceptbyconsentofallparties,tositinanyof -#* thefollowingcases:[Whenthejudgeorchancellor]...[h]aspresidedonthetrialinaninferiorcourt....K K # X:NXXX:Nh #N N Relyingupon 8  Housev.State,911S.W.2d705(Tenn.1995),theCourtofCriminal  X AppealsfoundthatthedecisionofBlackmonscounseltowaivethejudgesqualificationwasimputabletoBlackmonand,hence,binding.X:NXX X:NWedisagree.BecauseBlackmonhadtherighttowaivethe \  constitutionalandstatutoryqualificationofthetrialjudge,wemustdeterminewhetherheexercisedthatright.N N  `  N N Theconstitutionalandstatutoryprovisionsrelatingtoajudgesqualificationaredirectedtowardsensuringtheimpartialityofajudge.Wehaveheldthattherighttoanimpartialjudgeisafundamentalconstitutionalright.Statev.  Benson,973S.W.2d202,205(Tenn.1998).Duetoourlongstanding H  presumptionagainstwaiveroffundamentalconstitionalrights,theserightsmustbepersonallywaivedbyadefendant.Statev. # Muse,967S.W.2d764,767(Tenn.1998).L BecauseBlackmonhadthe &H  righttopersonallywaivetheconstitionalandstatutoryqualificationofthetrialjudge,wemustdeterminewhetherheexercisedthatright.L N N  L%   `  Inorderforawaiverofaconstitutionallygrantedrighttobevalid,itmustbe voluntarily,knowingly,andintelligentlygiven.Statev.Middlebrooks,840S.W.2d317,326(Tenn.1992). +p!( Theknowingandvoluntarywaiverincludestheintentionalrelinquishmentorabandonmentofknownrights.Statev.Pearson, T/$, 858S.W.2d879,887(Tenn.1993);# X:NXXX:N$#Johnsonv.State,834S.W.2d922, 1t&. 923(Tenn.1992);X:NXX X:NJohnsonv.Zerbst,304U.S.458,464,58S.Ct. 2 (0 1019,1023,82L.Ed.1461,1466(1938).Therecordofawaiverofadefendantsright mustaffirmativelydemonstratethathisdecisionwasbothvoluntaryandknowledgeable,i.e.,thathehas 7$-6 beenmadeawareofthesignificantconsequencesofsucha[waiver];otherwise,itwillnotamounttoanintentionalabandonmentofaknownright.Statev.Mackey,553S.W.2d337,340(Tenn.1977).  X TheCourtwillnotpresumeawaiverofimportantconstitutionalrightsfromasilentrecord.Boykinv.Alabama,395U.S.238,242, < 89S.Ct.1709,1712,23L.Ed.2d274,279(1969). `  Inthecaseundersubmission,therecorddoesnotincludeevidencesufficienttodemonstratea knowledgeablewaiverbyBlackmon.TherecorddoesnotshowthatBlackmonunderstoodtheeffectofthewaiverandtheattendantconstitutionalimplications.Thisisevidencedbycounselsdiscussionwiththecourt: X  Q:[TheCourt]Didyoudiscussthejurisdictionalissuewithyourclient?  A:[Mr.Henderson]Idid.IdidntdiscusstheHamiltoncase.Tobetruthful,I "> didntknowaboutit.  Q:DidyoudiscussthefactthatIhadhadthepreliminaryhearing?  A:Heaskedmeaboutthat,andItoldhimIbelievedyouwouldbeafairandimpartialjudge,andIbelieveyouwereafairandimpartialjudge.Idisagreewithsomeofyourrulings.Wewillhavethosekindsofdifferencesovertheyears,Iexpect.  Thisisnotthepoint,Judge.IfyoulookattheHamiltoncase ~.#+   Q:YoudiscussedthefactIhadthepreliminaryhearing.Ihadforgotten.IthoughtIhadjusthadabondhearing.Thatisneitherherenorthere.Whatdidyoudetermine?Nottoraisethatissue?    A:ItoldhimthatIbelievedyouwouldbeafairandimpartialjurist.Anditwasmydecision,nothis,togoforwardandhaveatrialofthecase. 8-7   Q:Didheconcurwithyou?Imeandidhesaythatsallright?  A:Hedidntsayonewayortheotheranything.Iwascounsel,andthatiswhatIdecidedtodo,andthatwastheendofit.  Q:Heunderstoodatthattimehehadarighttoraisethatissue,Itakeit.  A:Idontknowwhatheunderstoodatthattime.  Q:Youtalkedtohimaboutit?  A:Italkedtohimaboutit,butasfarasitwasmyopinionthathiscasewouldbebetterservedbygoingtotrialatthattimebeforeyou.Ifeltlikeyouwouldbefairandimpartial,andIfeltlikewewouldgetafairhearing.Andhereliedtotallyonmyadviceatthattime.... D/XR/`/ `  WhattherecorddemonstratesisthatcounselsconversationwithBlackmonaboutthisissuewasfocusedonthefairnessofthetrialjudgenotthesignificanceofthewaiver.ItfurtherdemonstratescounselsfailuretoclearlyadviseBlackmonthat# X:NXXX:N*#adifferentjudgewouldconducthistrialX:NXX X:NԀifhedeclinedto L%  waivethequalificationissue.# X:NXXX:N.8#Inourview,Blackmondidnotwaive &l" hisrighttoaconstitutionallyqualifiedjudge.Thisrightdoesnotimplicateprinciplesoffairnessoverwhichthejudgeisthearbiteritchieflyconcernsajudgesqualificationamattertobedecidedundertheconstitutionandsubjecttowaiverbythedefendant.X:NXX X:N T/$,  ` M M N N M M N N M M  ` N _P(  N L _P(  L   III 7$-6 _P(  M _P(  M    ` M _P(  M # X:NXXX:N:#X:NXX X:N `  WemovenowtoaddressBlackmonsclaimthatthe 8  forfeitureofhisautomobile,seizedincidenttohisarrestontheinstantcharges,is punishmentforthepurposesofthedoublejeopardyclausesoftheUnitedStatesandtheTennesseeConstitutions,therebyrenderingadditionalpunishmentunconstitutional. `  ThedoublejeopardyclauseoftheFifthAmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution,applicabletothestatesthroughtheFourteenthAmendment,providesthatnopersonshall besubjectforthesameoffensetobetwiceputinjeopardyoflifeorlimb....Inaddition,Tenn.Const.art.I,10providesthat nopersonshall,forthesameoffence,betwiceputinjeopardyoflifeorlimb.# X:NXXX:N;#X:NXX X:NLXX:N !h # LL:?#L L#X:NXLY?## X:NXXX:N?#X:NXX X:N `  InUrsery,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthat L%  civilforfeituregenerallydoesnotconstitutepunishmentforthepurposesofthedoublejeopardyclause.# X:NXXX:N@#518U.S.at27071,116S. ($ Ct.at2138,135L.Ed.2dat557.X:NXX X:NԀTheCourtbaseditsdecisionon P*& atwoparttest,oneprongbeingwhetherthelegislatureintendedforfeitureproceedingstobecriminalorcivil.Id.at288,116S. -#* Ct.at2147,135L.Ed.2dat56869.Thesecondprongbeingwhethertheforfeitureproceedingsaresopunitiveinformandeffectastoovercomeourlegislaturesintentandrendertheproceedingscriminal.Id. X4)2 N oN (  N L oN (  L K oN (  K  `  InStuartv.StateDeptofSafety,963S.W.2d28,32 7$-6 (Tenn.1998),theCourtreliedonthetwopartUrserytestandheld \9.8 oN (  P oN (  P M oN (  M thatforfeitureunderTennesseelawisanactioninrem,whichis   M oN (  oN     M traditionallyviewedasacivilproceeding.Becausethelegislatureintendedforfeituretobeacivil,inremproceeding,  X theCourtheldthatforfeituredoesnotimpose punishmentforthepurposesofthedoublejeopardyclausesoftheUnitedStatesandtheTennesseeConstitutions.Id.at30.# X:NXXX:N{A#UnderStuart,Blackmons \  doublejeopardyissueiswithoutmerit.N N N N  #  6          LX X:NL L#X:NXLmH## X:NXXX:NH#X:NXX X:N  IV 0     `  Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals,insofarasitholdsthatBlackmonconsentedtothetrialcourtsjurisdiction,isreversed.Asrespectstheforfeituredoublejeopardyissue,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed.Thecauseisremandedtothetrialcourtforanewtrialorotherappropriatedisposition.CostsofthiscausearetaxedagainsttheState,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary. `  # X:NXXX:NH#P P  `     h     ____________________________________ `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice̜K K CONCUR:Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Holder,Barker,JJ.