WPCY # VU:a % 044w@ 0J@ 0T 0^ 0h< 0r 0| 0 0 1u U, 0dI U, U* B)DC, AMov~ BQvn D3A 0@t AO 0D D/  B<HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,rAZ"Arial RegularX( U$  Gav t3|xt bDcDdePfDgPhPiDjӀt 2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd-!C << G  !  #d#      YYY FILEDXMay20,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@ dStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &Xd&#Xd#      ,  ` 7XXdd7  \RA'\ћ@ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEEٜL"#!;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ ATNASHVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) NOTFORPUBLICATION      ) Appellee,    ) Filed:May20,1996      )v.      ) MONTGOMERYCRIMINAL      )DAVIDR.SHELTON,   ) Hon.JamesE.Walton,Judge      ) Appellant.    )        )      )       )       )      ) No.01S019507CC00104 ForAppellee:     ForAppellant:CharlesW.Burson     GregoryD.SmithAttorneyGeneral&Reporter   Clarksville,TennesseeMichaelE.MooreSolicitorGeneralGordonW.SmithAssociateSolicitorGeneralNashville,TennesseeSteveGarrettAssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneralClarksville,Tennessee@ OPINIONX̜COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSREVERSED.        DROWOTA,J. Thiscasepresentsthequestionofwhetheratrialcourtmay,pursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.5510403(b)(2),waivethemandatoryfinefordrivingundertheinfluence(DUI)ifthedefendantisfoundtobeindigent.Becauseweconcludethatthecourtdoeshavethisauthority,wereversethejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsandremandthecaseforfurtherproceedings.   FACTSANDPROCEDURALHISTORY    Thedefendant,DavidR.Shelton,wasconvictedbyajuryofDUI,hissecondsuchoffense;andaspartofthesentence,thetrialcourtorderedthathepayafineof$500.Thedefendantsappointedcounselthenaskedthetrialcourttowaivethefinebecauseofthedefendantsindigence.Thetrialcourtrespondedtotherequestasfollows: Iwillgivesomethoughttothat,butIdonotknowthatIhavetheabilitytowaiveaminimum,mandatoryfine.Thetrialcourtdeclinedtowaivethefine. ThedefendantthenappealedtotheCourtofCriminalAppeals,whichaffirmedthetrialcourtsjudgment.Astowhetherthetrialcourtcouldhavewaivedtheminimumfinebecauseofthedefendantsindigence,theCourtstatedthattheissuewas mootbecausetherewasnoindicationthatthetrialcourthadinfactdesiredtowaivethefine.TheCourtwentontosay,however,that: Nolawhasbeencitedandnoneisknownthatexemptsindigentsfromhavingmandatoryfinesassessedagainstthem.Thedefendantsubsequentlyappliedforpermissiontoappeal,whichwegranted.   ANALYSIS    ThedefendantarguesthattrialcourtsdohavetheauthoritytowaiveminimumfinesforDUIuponafindingofindigence.HecitesTenn.CodeAnn.5510403(b)(2)and5510303(b)(1)assupportforthisargument.Thosestatutesprovide,inpertinentpart: Unlessthejudge,usingtheapplicablecriteriasetoutin4014202(b),determinesthatapersonconvictedofviolatingtheprovisionsof55104015510404isindigent,theminimumapplicablefineshallbemandatoryandnotsubjecttoreductionorsuspension...;and:8 Inadditiontoallotherrequirementsoflaw,priortoreinstatingthedrivingprivilegesand/orreissuingadriverlicensetoanypersonwhohasbeenconvictedoftheoffenseofdrivingundertheinfluence,thedepartment[ofsafety]shallrequirecertificationthatallfinesandcostshavebeenpaidtothecourtofjurisdiction.Suchcertificationshallbemadeuponaformsuppliedbythedepartment,andshallindicatethefinesandcostsleviedbythecourt,orthatthefinesand/orcostswerewaivedasaresultofthepersonbeingfoundtobeindigentbythecourt,ifsuchcourtislocatedwithinthisstate.(Emphasisadded).Thedefendantconcludesthatbecausetrialcourtshavetheauthoritytowaivetheminimumfine,andbecauseheisinfactindigent,thetrialcourtshouldhaveexerciseditsauthorityhere. TheStatedoesnotdisputethepropositionthattrialcourtshavetheauthoritytowaivetheminimumfineuponadeterminationofindigency.Rather,theStatearguesthatbecausethedefendantposteda$10,000appealbond,hemaynotactuallybeindigentandthusmaynotbeeligibletohavethefinewaived.TheStateconcludesthatbecausetheanswertothisquestionisunclear,thisCourtshouldremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings. Thepropositionsoflawadvancedbythepartiesarecorrect.TrialcourtsareempoweredtowaivetheminimumfineforDUIuponadeterminationofindigency;indeed,itwouldbedifficultfortheStatetomaintainotherwiseinlightofAttorneyGeneralOpinionNo.U9301,whichprovides,inpertinentpart: pursuanttoT.C.A.5510403(b)(2),thecourtmaywaivetheminimummandatoryfineifthedefendantconvictedofDUIisindigent.AuthoritytowaiveaDUImandatoryfineisconsistentwiththecourtsgeneralauthoritytowaiveafine.T.C.A.4024102....Becausethisrecorddoesnotdisclosewhetherthedefendantisactuallyindigent,thiscaseisherebyremandedtotheMontgomeryCountyCriminalCourtforfurtherproceedings.     ______________________________________     FRANKF.DROWOTAIII     JUSTICE̜Concur:Anderson,CJ.Reid,Birch,White,JJ.     ̀         8