WPC/1 /p$3Ǚ7]&xIvZ>[)ћ-_ӌI!  UuI'ptDB s%öĄz&ݘ8`^dqUHD%Vqe~_99M|lKsʴ%ZAE8"ҩՅԪєB` MdgbƤc1 ߢs\GF2'bA)g !ͳf3D! kIפiMzFoF7;4'AB)"o`mŏ@sj/:R2^*/-HX2cFݨo3l+uxm+ՉjD8uL (;ڂۊ-Av:NJ"z,#=k%kUΤTН XVH:*# L 0DW % 0UFSw@4 0 0D UF% 0Dk 0D    UFUFUF&UFl<UF D/4cU:f UF ) UF" BU" AQr"" #U Nq/UN/UF 0UFS0UF0 B0 D30HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(3$ !  #X(<$X7ӺXXdXXd7    #XXX#X<4 9Z .Courier New Regular stuDvDDӀ BQ&P 3|x   y$X  #X=XX#X `   3     XXX#X=Investorsalsoreceivedacopyofaninvoicereflectingtheir   ownershipinterestinacertainnumberofcasesoftoothpaste.Theinvestorsneverplannedtotakeactualpossessionofthetoothpaste;instead,theywereledtobelievetheywouldreceivetheprofitsfromthesaleofthetoothpaste.((3:$ <!X7XXdXXd7    #XXX#X   `   0  (#$  0  <4 9Z .Courier New Regular(3$ !  ($$   1   }  :$X  #XXX#X `   1    'XXX#XThepartiesusetheterm elbowcounsel.XXX'XWeinterpretXXXXԀ elbow   counseltomeananattorneywhofunctionsinapurelyadvisoryrole,withoutactivelyparticipatinginthetrial.XXXXAprose 8  defendantwhoispermittedsuchcounselmayconsultcounselforguidanceandadvice,butotherwisehandlesthedefenseofthecaseonhisorherown.#XXXXκ#Becausewefindtheterm advisorycounselto . moreaccuratelydescribetherolesuchanattorneyplays,wewillusethatterminplaceof elbowcounsel.Anothertermcommonlyusedinotherjurisdictionsis standbycounsel.Weperceive standbycounseltomeancounselwhoisnotactivelyparticipatinginthetrialbutisavailabletostepinandtakeoverascounselifcalledupontodosobyeitherthedefendantorthetrialcourt.Werecognizethatinthepast,appellatecourtshaveusedtheterms elbowcounsel, advisorycounsel,and standbycounselinterchangeably.WenowtaketheopportunitytoclarifythesetermsforTennessee.   y$X  #X=XX#X `   5    XXX#X=XXXXSeeUnitedStatesv.Kneeland,148F.3d6,13(1stCir.1998);   UnitedStatesv.Einfeldt,138F.3d373,378(8thCir.1998),cert. b  denied,119S.Ct.126(1998);UnitedStatesv.Mikolajczyk,137 8  F.3d237,246(5thCir.1998);UnitedStatesv.Singleton,107F.3d   1091,110003(4thCir.1997),cert.denied,118S.Ct.84(1997);  X UnitedStatesv.Mosely,810F.2d93,9798(6thCir.1987);People . v.Crandell,760P.2d423,436(Cal.1988);Relifordv.People,579  P.2d1145,1148(Colo.1978);Statev.Oliphant,702A.2d1206, f 1212(Conn.App.Ct.1997);Eadyv.State,695So.2d752,75556 < (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997);Revierev.State,498S.E.2d332,335   (Ga.Ct.App.1998);Peoplev.Redd,670N.E.2d583,601(Ill. \  1996);Parrenv.State,523A.2d597,599(Md.1987),citedwith 2  approvalinHarrisv.State,687A.2d970,97374(Md.1997);   Peoplev.Dennany,519N.W.2d128,141(Mich.1994);Statev. j  Wilson,564N.W.2d241,253(Neb.1997);Harrisv.State,942P.2d @  p 151,155(Nev.1997);Peoplev.Mirenda,442N.E.2d49,51(N.Y.   1982);Statev.Cummings,546N.W.2d406,419(Wis.1996);seealso b  Wakev.Barker,514S.W.2d692,69697(Ky.1974)(holdingthat 8  trialcourtspossessthepowertoappointstandbycounsel);N.C.Gen.Stat.15A-1243(1997)( Whenadefendanthaselectedtoproceedwithouttheassistanceofcounsel,thetrialjudgeinhisdiscretionmayappointstandbycounseltoassistthedefendantwhencalleduponandtobringtothejudge'sattentionmattersfavorabletothedefendantuponwhichthejudgeshouldruleuponhisownmotion.).ButseeCommonwealthv.Africa,353A.2d855,864(Pa.   1976)( Wheneveradefendantseekstorepresenthimself,andparticularlywhenhemaybedisruptive,standbycounselshouldbeappointed.);Statev.Sanders,237S.E.2d53,54(S.C.   1977)(holdingthatadefendanthasarighttocounselevenifhechoosestorepresenthimself),citedwithapprovalinStatev. @  Brewer,492S.E.2d97,99(S.C.1997).#XXXX˩#ԀSeegenerallyJohnS.   Herbrand,Annotation,AccusedsRighttoRepresentHimselfinState `  CriminalProceedingModernStateCases,98A.L.R.3d13,24 6 (1980&Supp.1998).<4 9Z .Courier New Regular4.Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular< 9Z .Courier New Regular 2  :$X  #XXX#X `   2    XXX#XOneofthesecountswasabandoned.TheStaterequestedan   orderofnolleprosequipriortotrialinonecount.<4 9Z .Courier New Regular((' dxd "  X)XX#X"XX)   Ad FILEDX)X"  April12,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular   y$X  #X=XX#X `   4    XXX#X=ThetermusedinthecasewasXXXX elbowcounsel.#XXXX#<4 9Z .Courier New Regular d! C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  y$X  $XXX#X `   5    %XXX#X&XXXXSeeUnitedStatesv.Kneeland,148F.3d6,13(1stCir.1998);   UnitedStatesv.Einfeldt,138F.3d373,378(8thCir.1998),cert. b  denied,119S.Ct.126(1998);UnitedStatesv.Mikolajczyk,137 8  F.3d237,246(5thCir.1998);UnitedStatesv.Singleton,107F.3d   1091,110003(4thCir.1997),cert.denied,118S.Ct.84(1997);  X UnitedStatesv.Mosely,810F.2d93,9798(6thCir.1987);People . v.Crandell,760P.2d423,436(Cal.1988);Relifordv.People,579  P.2d1145,1148(Colo.1978);Statev.Oliphant,702A.2d1206, f 1212(Conn.App.Ct.1997);Eadyv.State,695So.2d752,75556 < (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1997);Revierev.State,498S.E.2d332,335   (Ga.Ct.App.1998);Peoplev.Redd,670N.E.2d583,601(Ill. \  1996);Parrenv.State,523A.2d597,599(Md.1987),citedwith 2  approvalinHarrisv.State,687A.2d970,97374(Md.1997);   Peoplev.Dennany,519N.W.2d128,141(Mich.1994);Statev. j  Wilson,564N.W.2d241,253(Neb.1997);Harrisv.State,942P.2d @   151,155(Nev.1997);Peoplev.Mirenda,442N.E.2d49,51(N.Y.   1982);Statev.Cummings,546N.W.2d406,419(Wis.1996);seealso b  Wakev.Barker,514S.W.2d692,69697(Ky.1974)(trialcourts 8  possessthepowertoappointstandbycounsel);N.C.Gen.Stat.15A-1243(1997)( Whenadefendanthaselectedtoproceedwithouttheassistanceofcounsel,thetrialjudgeinhisdiscretionmayappointstandbycounseltoassistthedefendantwhencalleduponandtobringtothejudge'sattentionmattersfavorabletothedefendantuponwhichthejudgeshouldruleuponhisownmotion.).ButseeCommonwealthv.Africa,353A.2d855,864(Pa.1976)(When   adefendantseekstorepresenthimself,particularlyifheisdisruptive,standbycounselshouldbeappointed);Statev.Sanders, 2  237S.E.2d53,54(S.C.1977)(Adefendanthasarighttocounselevenifhechoosestorepresenthimself),citedwithapprovalin j  Statev.Brewer,492S.E.2d97,99(S.C.1997).#%XXXX#ԀSeegenerallyJohn @  S.Herbrand,Annotation,AccusedsRighttoRepresentHimselfin   StateCriminalProceedingModernStateCases,98A.L.R.3d13, `  24(1980&Supp.1998).(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New Regular<4 9Z .Courier New RegularP Pd'dxd <!X7XXdXXd7    #XXX#X   XXX#XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T  7XXdXXd7r )<,(j 8` `@E  ` 8ttxPX  rt )>.*jx` `@EL ` 8ttxP (  tߛ@DINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@tt)DATKNOXVILLESTATEOFTENNESSEE p )FORPUBLICATION < Ѐ   h      p )    ` PlaintiffAppellee     p )FILED:APRIL12,1999 \   `     h      p )v. `     h      p )KNOXCOUNTY    `     h      p )GERALDPATRICKSMALL     p )HON.MARYBETHLEIBOWITZ, @   `     h      p )  JUDGE   ЀDefendantAppellant p ) `   `     h      p )NO.03S019804CR00038ForAppellant:   h      p ForAppellee:  KENNETHF.IRVINE,JR.     p JOHNKNOXWALKUP H  Knoxville,TN   p AttorneyGeneralandReporter !  `     h      p MICHAELE.MOORE `     h      p SolicitorGeneral `     h      p ELIZABETHT.RYAN `     h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h      p Nashville,TN `     h      p RANDALLE.NICHOLS `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h      p WILLIAMJ.BLEVINS `     h      p &cY&XXAssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral#XX&&cY # +p!(  `     h      p Knoxville,TN `     h      p @,DOPINIONAFFIRMED    h      p      x  BIRCH,J.  :/9g ^  `  Wegrantedpermissiontoappealinthiscaseinorderto   determinewhetheranaccusedwhohasintelligentlyandvoluntarilywaivedtherighttocounselandchosentoproceedproseisconstitutionallyentitledtotheassistanceofadvisorycounsel.  #  1      ׀  Weconcludethatthereisnosuchconstitutionalentitlementandthattheappointmentofsuchadvisorycounselisamatterentirelywithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt.Here,thetrialcourtdeclinedtoappointadvisorycounsel.Forthereasonsbelowstated,wefindthetrialcourtsdecisiontobeamplysupportedbytherecordandaffirmthejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals. `  GeraldPatrickSmallwasindictedin1993onfivecountsoftheftofpropertyofavalueover$10,000,  #  2      ׀onecountoftheft H  ofpropertyofavalueover$1,000,onecountofattemptedtheft,andonecountofsecuritiesfraud.Apublicdefenderwasappointedtorepresenthim.InMarch1995,however,thedefendantfileda MotiontoChangeCounsel,inwhichherequestedpermissionto &l" Мrepresenthimself,albeitwiththeaidofappointedcounselasadvisorycounsel.Afterconsideringthemotion,thetrialcourtconcludedthatitcouldeitherallowthedefendanttoproceedproseorpermitrepresentationbyappointedcounselwhowouldhandleallaspectsofthetrial,butthatitcouldnotallowboth.Accordingly,thecourtrelievedthepublicdefenderandpermittedthedefendanttoconducthisowndefense. `  AsynopsisoftheconvictingevidencerevealsthatthedefendantsolicitedpersonstoinvestintoacompanyknownasPatrickIndustries,Inc.ThedefendantrepresentedtoprospectiveinvestorsthatPatrickIndustrieswasamanufactureranddistributoroftoothpasteandotherpersonalhygieneproducts.Inthenewspaperadvertisementsolicitinginvestors,thedefendantrepresentedthatthereturnontheinvestmentscouldbeasfavorableastwentytoone.Twopersonseachinvested$25,000.Threepersonsinvestedamountsof$5,000,$6,000,and$12,500,respectively.Inreturnfortheirmonies,eachpersonreceivedsharesofstockinPatrickIndustries.   #  3       ($  `  ThebankrecordsforPatrickIndustriesrevealedthatoverfiftypercentofthesolicitedfundswereeitherspentonpersonalexpensesforthedefendantandhisfamilyorwithdrawnfromthecompanyaccountbychecksmadeoutto cash.Otherfundswereapparentlyspentonconstructionofanoperationsplantand 2 (0 otherbusinessexpenses.PatrickIndustries,however,neverbroughtanyproducttomarket.TheStatepresentedadditionalevidencethatthedefendanthadbeeninvestigatedinthepastforsimilarschemes.Thejuryconvictedthedefendantoffivecountsoftheftandonecountoffraud.ThetrialcourtimposedaRangeIeffectivesentenceoftenyears. `  Thedefendantappealedhisconvictionsandsentences,arguingthatthetrialcourthadimproperlydeniedhimtheassistanceofadvisorycounsel.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthedefendantsconvictionsandsentences,concludingthattherewasnoconstitutionalrighttosuchcounselandthatthetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbyfailingtoappointadvisorycounsel. `  Whetheraproseaccusedisentitledtoadvisorycounselisaquestionoflaw,whichwereviewdenovo.SeeStatev.Davis, L%  940S.W.2d558,561(Tenn.1997). `  BoththeUnitedStatesandTennesseeConstitutionsguaranteetherightofanaccusedtoselfrepresentationortorepresentationbycounsel. U.S.Const.amend.VI;Tenn.Const. -#* art.I,9;Farettav.California,422U.S.806,807,95S.Ct. p/$, 2525,2527,45L.Ed.2d562,566(1975);Statev.Northington,667 1&. S.W.2d57,60(Tenn.1984).Therighttorepresentoneself,however,shouldbegrantedonlyafteradeterminationbythetrialcourtthatthedefendantisbothknowinglyandintelligentlywaivingthevaluablerighttoassistanceofcounsel.Tenn.R. 7@-6 Crim.P.44(a);Johnsonv.Zerbst,304U.S.458,46465,58S.Ct.   1019,1023,82L.Ed.1461,146667(1938);Statev.Burkhart, 8  541S.W.2d365,368(Tenn.1976).Infact,incaseswhereanintelligent,knowingwaiverwasnotadequatelyshownintherecord,thedefendants'convictionshavebeenreversed.SeeStatev. < Coleman,519S.W.2d581(Tenn.1975). \   `  Therighttoselfrepresentationandtherighttocounselhavebeenconstruedtobealternativeones; [t]hatis,onehasarighteithertoberepresentedbycounselortorepresenthimself,   toconducthisowndefense.Statev.Melson,638S.W.2d342,359 D (Tenn.1982). [W]aiverofonerightconstitutesacorrelativeassertionoftheother....[A]criminaldefendantcannotlogicallywaiveorassertbothrights.Burkhart,541S.W.2dat H  368(quotingUnitedStatesv.Conder,423F.2d904,908(6thCir. !h 1970)).Onewhoknowinglyandintelligentlywaivestherighttocounselcannotlaterallegethedeprivationofeffectiveassistanceofcounsel.SeeStatev.Goodwin,909S.W.2d35,4142,45(Tenn. &l" Crim.App.1995). `  ThisCourthaspreviouslyaddressedthisissueinthecontextof hybridrepresentation,thatiso,op:pqqwhereboththedefendantandcounselwerepermittedtoparticipateinthedefense.InBurkhart,westatedthatsuchhybridrepresentationshouldbe 1t&. permitted sparinglyandwithcautionandonlyafterajudicialdeterminationthatthedefendant(1)isnotseekingtodisruptorderlytrialprocedureand(2)thatthedefendanthastheintelligence,abilityandgeneralcompetencetoparticipateinhis 7$-6 owndefense.Burkhart,541S.W.2dat371. Indiscussinghybrid   representation,wementioned,inpassing,thesamevariationontheissueofrepresentationwhichispresentedhere:thatis,permittingadefendanttoconducthisorherowndefensewithanattorneypresentinanadvisorycapacity.  #  4      ׀Id. X  `  Subsequently,inMelson,werestatedthat [t]herightof $  adefendanttoparticipateinhisowndefenseisanalternativeone....Itisentirelyamatterofgraceforadefendanttorepresenthimselfandhavecounsel,andsuchprivilegeshouldbegrantedbythetrialcourtonlyinexceptionalcircumstances.rrsMelsonst,tsrrs638S.W.2dat359.   Z) `  Otherjurisdictionswhichhaveaddressedtheconceptofadvisorycounselalmostuniversallyagreethatthereisnofederalorstateconstitutionalrighttosuchcounselonceadefendanthasknowinglyandintelligentlywaivedtherighttocounsel.Rather,thedecisionwhethertoappointadvisorycounseliswithinthediscretionofthetrialcourt.vfvv"fv  #  5      כ (4$ Ї `  WenotedinStatev.Franklin,714S.W.2d252(Tenn.   1986)(alsoahybridrepresentationcase),that8 ` 8 ` (#` (#8 [o]neofthemostfundamentalresponsibilitiesofatrialcourtinacriminalcaseistoassurethatafairtrialisconducted.Generally,thetrialcourt,whichhaspresidedovertheproceedings,isinthebestpositiontomakedeterminationsregardinghowtoachievethisprimarypurpose,andabsentsomeabuseofthetrialcourt'sdiscretioninmarshallingthetrial,anappellatecourtshouldnotredetermineinretrospectandonacoldrecordhowthecasecouldhavebeenbettertried. xx ]0Id.at258(citationusuomitted). d  `  Theoverallrchingobjectiveofeverycriminaltrialisthatthedefendantreceiveafairtrial.Thetrialcourt,whoseresponsibilityitistoensuretheorderlyandfairprogressionoftheproceedings,isinanexcellentpositiontodeterminethelegalassistancenecessarytoensureadefendantsrighttoafairtrial. &l" Thisdeterminationwilldepend,inpart,uponthenatureandgravityofthecharge,onthefactualandlegalcomplexityoftheproceedings,andontheintelligenceandlegalacumenofthedefendant.SeePeoplev.Gibson,556N.E.2d226,233(Ill.1990).  Thus,weholdthatthedecisionwhethertoappointadvisorycounseltoassistaprosedefendantrestsentirelywithinthetrialcourtsdiscretion.Thetrialcourtsdecisiononthisissuewillnotbeoverturnedintheabsenceofaclearabuseofthatdiscretion. `  Inthecasebeforeus,therecordamplydemonstratesthatthedefendantwasclearlyadvisedofthepitfallsofselfrepresentation.Eventhoughhewasinformedpriortotrialthathewouldnotbefurnishedadvisorycounsel,hepersistedinhisrequestthathebeallowedtorepresenthimself. `  UsingthecriteriaestablishedinUnitedStatesv. L%  McDowell,814F.2d245(6thCir.1987),thetrialcourtdetermined &l" thatthedefendantwasawareofthenatureofthechargesagainsthimandthepossiblesentencehewasfacing.Heappearedtobeintelligentandarticulate.Heinformedthecourtofhisfamiliaritywiththerulesofevidenceandcriminalprocedure.Ultimately,hesatisfiedthetrialcourtthathiswaiverofhisrighttocounselwasaknowingandintelligentone. `  Thetrialcourtindicatedthatitwouldhavepreferredtoappointadvisorycounseltoassistthedefendantthroughoutthecourseofthetrial.Butbelievingthatitlackedtheauthority, 7$-6 itdeclinedtoappointsuchcounsel.Ouranalysis,however,leadsustoconcludethatthetrialcourtdoes,indeed,havesuchauthority.Eventhoughthetrialcourtdidnotbelieveithadsuchauthority,thetrialcourtsdecisiontodenyadvisorycounselinthiscaseisamplysupportedbytherecord. `  Inconclusion,weholdthatthereisnoconstitutionalrighttotheappointmentofadvisorycounselwhereadefendanthasknowinglyandintelligentlywaivedtherighttocounsel.Undertheappropriatecircumstances,however,thetrialcourthasthediscretiontoappointadvisorycounsel.Thetrialcourtsdecisioninthisregardwillnotbeoverturnedabsentanabuseofthatdiscretion.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedagainstthedefendant. `     h      p ______________________________ `     h      p ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,Justice̜CONCUR:̛Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Holder,Barker,JJ.