WPCv # VU:a % 0w) 4  0 0D 1 0J9 0T 0^ 0h5 0r 0| 0 0 1u 0d BzU *B)DC AM-uzv~ v D3^ 0@ AO  0D D/* BYHP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh,  AZ"Arial RegularX(`zZ$TRY,3' Letter3'3' Letter3'T  EerDDberEEIDHEӀN$3|x((2"$ zZ!TRX3' Letter3'3'4Avery 5389 Index/Post Card3'T   4 XX   0  (#$  0  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)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd-#C << G k !  #d#!\R3'\     !   YYY FILED!X April27,1998CecilCrowson,Jr.!AppellateCourtClerk   !#d#!\R3'\     $ 4   !       OralargumentwasheardinthiscaseonNovember20,1997,inJohnsonCity,Tennessee,aspartofthisCourtsS.C.A.L.E.S.( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal E ducationfor S tudents)project.PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva  'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !\R3'\     4        \RA'\ћ7XXdd7   R$%#A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@ ATKNOXVILLE@ (HEARDATJOHNSONCITY)       FORPUBLICATION        Filed: 򀀀April27,1998 STATEOFTENNESSEE,@ )@ ) APPELLEE,@ ) BRADLEYCRIMINAL@ )v.@ ) Hon.MayoL.Mashburn,Judge@ )JOSEPHCATTONE,@ ) No.03S019706CR00075@ ) APPELLANT.@ )!&FORAPPELLANTS:    FORAPPELLEES:CHARLESM.CORN    JOHNKNOXWALKUPPUBLICDEFENDER    ATTORNEYGENERALANDREPORTERCLEVELAND      ELIZABETHT.RYAN      ASSISTANTATTORNEYGENERAL      NASHVILLE!X@ !OPINION !XAPPELLATECOURTREVERSEDINPART,AFFIRMEDINPART;CASEREMANDED HOLDER,J. @ OPINION  Wegrantedanappealinthiscasetodeterminewhetherthevaluesofservicerenderedbydifferentindividualsmaybeaggregatedunderthetheftofservicesstatute,Tenn.CodeAnn.3914104.InStatev.Byrd,___S.W.2d___(Tenn.1998),weheldsimultaneouspossessionofstolenpropertybelongingtodifferentownersmaybeconsideredasoneoffenseandthevalueofthepropertymaybeaggregatedforpurposesofestablishingthegradeofoffenseunderthetheftofpropertystatute.OurholdinginByrd,however,waslimitedtotheftbytheexerciseofcontroloveranother'spropertyanddidnotapplytotheftofservices.Weholdthatthevalueofservicestakenfromseparateindividualscannotbeaggregatedunderthetheftofservicesstatute.  FACTS    Thedefendantownedandoperatedabusiness.InApril,1991,hisdrugandalcoholdependencebegantoaffecthisbusiness.InMay,1991,hewasunabletopayhisemployeesfortheirservices,topayhisUnitedParcelService("UPS")billandtocoveradrafthehadwrittentoasupplierformaterials.Subsequently,hewasindictedfortwocountsoftheftofservicesandfortwocountsoftheftofproperty. IncountIoftheindictment,theStateallegedthatthedefendantcommittedtheftofservicesfromapproximatelythirtyfiveofhisemployees.Theindictmentread,inpertinentpart,thatthedefendant:8 onoraboutMAY,1991,...unlawfully,feloniously,knowinglyandintentionallyobtain[ed]servicesof:[namesofthirtyfiveindividuals],byuseofdeception,fraud,coercion,falsepretenseorothermeansforthepurposeofavoidingpaymentforsaidservices.Further,thatsaidactswereacontinuing,criminalimpulseorintentorwerepursuanttotheexecutionofagenerallarcenousscheme,wherebyconstitutingasingleact.SaidservicesarevaluedatmorethanTENTHOUSANDAND00/100DOLLARS($10,000.00),inviolationofT.C.A.3914104,...Accordingly,theindictmentaggregatedthetotalvalueofthethirtyfiveemployees'servicesforpurposesofestablishingthegradeoftheoffensecharged. CountIIoftheindictmentchargedthedefendantwiththeftofservicesunderTenn.CodeAnn.3914104forfailingtopayhisUPSbillsinMayof1991.Theindictmentstatedthatthedefendant:8 onoraboutMAY,1991,inPolkCounty,Tennessee,andbeforethefindingofthisindictment,didunlawfully,feloniously,knowinglyandintentionallyobtainservicesofUNITEDPARCELSERVICES(UPS)byuseofdeception,fraud,coercion,falsepretenseorothermeansforthepurposeofavoidingpaymentforsaidservices.SaidservicesarevaluedatmorethanONETHOUSANDAND00/100DOLLARS($1,000.00),inviolationofT.C.A.3914104,allofwhichisagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee;InchargingthedefendantwiththeftofpropertyunderTenn.CodeAnn.3914103,countIIIstatedthat:8 onoraboutMAY,1991,inPolkCounty,Tennessee,andbeforethefindingofthisindictment,[thedefendant]didunlawfully,feloniouslyandknowinglyexercisecontroloverproperty,towit:8 personalproperty,overthevalueofFIVEHUNDREDDOLLARS($500.00),8 ofKENNETHCHASEwithouthiseffectiveconsent,withintenttodeprivethesaidownerthereof,inviolationofT.C.A.3914103,allofwhichisagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee.CountIVchargedthedefendantwiththeftofpropertyunderTenn.CodeAnn.3913103:8 onoraboutMAY,1991,inPolkCounty,Tennessee,andbeforethefindingofthisindictment,[thedefendant]didunlawfully,feloniouslyandknowinglyexercisecontroloverproperty,towit:8 personalproperty,overthevalueofFIVEHUNDREDDOLLARS($500.00),8 ofWALTERCHAMPIONCOMPANYwithouttheireffectiveconsent,withintenttodeprivethesaidownerthereof,inviolationofT.C.A.3914103,allofwhichisagainstthepeaceanddignityoftheStateofTennessee. Thedefendantfiledamotiontodismissarguingthattheindictment,asdescribedbythebillofparticulars,didnotallege"anyfactualallegationsamountingtoacrime."Specifically,thedefendantallegedthat:(1)countIimproperlyaggregated"numerousmisdemeanorsintoasinglefelonycount;"(2)countsIandIIfailedtodescribedthewrongdoing"allegedlyperpetratedbythedefendant;"and(3)countsIIIandIVfailedto"adequatelydescribethegoods[and]servicesallegedlyreceivedbythedefendant."Thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendant'smotiontodismiss"uponthegroundsthatthefactsdidnotsupportthecriminalintentoftheftofservices."TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthetrialcourtandreinstatedtheindictmentonallfourcounts.WereversetheappellatecourtastocountIoftheindictmentandaffirmtheappellatecourt'sreinstatementofcountsII,IIIandIV. &       COUNTI    CountIchargedthedefendantwiththeftofservicesfor"intentionallyobtain[ing]services."ThetheftofservicesstatuteiscodifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.3914104andprovidesinrelevantpart:8 TheftofServices.Apersoncommitstheftofserviceswho:0 8 (1)Intentionallyobtainsservicesbydeception,fraud,coercion,falsepretenseoranyothermeanstoavoidpaymentfortheservices;Tenn.CodeAnn.3914104. Aggregationoftheftoffensesisgenerallypermittedundertwofactualscenarios.First,aggregationofvalueofstolenpropertytakeninseparatetheftsispermittedwhenseparateactsoftheftare:(1)fromthesameowner;(2)fromthesamelocation;and(3)arepursuanttocontinuingcriminalimpulseorasinglesustainedlarcenousscheme.Statev.Byrd,___S.W.2d___,___(Tenn.1998).Wheretheseelementsarepresent,aggregationispermittedunderboththetheftofpropertystatuteandthetheftofservicesstatute.SeegenerallyTenn.CodeAnn.3914103,104.Second,aggregatingthevalueofstolenpropertytakenfromdifferentownersispermittedunderthetheftofpropertystatutewhenadefendantexercisessimultaneouspossessionorcontroloverstolenpropertybelongingtodifferentowners.Byrd,___S.W.2dat___.Thedefendant'sallegedtheftsincountIwerefromdifferentowners.Accordingly,thequestionnowbeforeusiswhetherthetheftofservicesstatutepermitsaggregatingthevalueofstolenservicestakenfromdifferentowners. Unlikethetheftofpropertystatute,thetheftofaserviceunderTennCodeAnn.3914104(1)mayonlybeaccomplishedby"obtaining"theserviceanddoesnotincorporatean"exercisingcontrolover"provisionsimilartothatfoundinthetheftofpropertystatute.CompareTenn.CodeAnn.3914103(stating"obtainsorexercisescontrolovertheproperty")withTenn.CodeAnn.3914104(stating"obtainsservicesbydeception").InByrd,weheldthatthe"exercisescontrolover"languageinthetheftofpropertystatutepermitsaggregatingthevalueofpropertytakenfromdifferentowners.Theabsenceofsuchlanguageinthetheftofservicesstatuteprecludesaggregationofthevalueofservicestakenfromdifferentowners.Accordingly,thesecondscenariopermittingaggregationwhereadefendantexercisessimultaneouspossessionorcontrolofpropertybelongingtodifferentindividualsisinapplicabletotheftofservicesunderTenn.CodeAnn.3914104(1). Whilethedefendant'sactionswerearguablyapartofacontinuingscheme,eachutteringofaworthlesschecktoadifferentindividualwasanindependentorseparatetransactionsufficienttosupportseparateindictments.Onlyseparateutteringstothesameindividualpursuanttoasinglelarcenousschememaybeaggregatedinthecasenowbeforeus.We,therefore,holdthatcountIimproperlyaggregatedseparatecrimesunderthetheftofservicesstatute.  COUNTSII,IIIANDIV    CountII,IIIandIVdidnotaggregatethevalueofpropertyforpurposesofestablishingthegradeoftheoffense.Thetrialcourtdismissedthesecountsbasedonafindingthattherewasnoproofofcriminalintent.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthetrialcourt,eloquentlyandsuccinctlystating:8  Itisnotthepurposeofeithertheindictmentorthebillofparticularstoadequatelyprovethecrimeortoelectamongalternativelegaltheoriesforthetheftsuchasdeception,fraud,orcoercion.Thecomplexnatureofthefactsunderlyingtheseoffensesmaypresentasignificantburdentothestateduringthecourseofthetrial;thecharginginstrument,however,isnotdefective.Attheconclusionoftheproofbythestate,itmaybethatthedefendantisentitledtoajudgmentofacquittal...Yetadismissaloftheindictmentatthistimewouldnotbewarranted.Thestatemustbeallowedtoproceed.Weagreewiththeappellatecourt'sholdingonthisissue.    CONCLUSION    CountIisdismissedforimproperlyaggregatingthevalueofservicesallegedlystolenfromdifferentindividualsunderTenn.CodeAnn.3913104.Thetrialcourt'sorderdismissingcountsII,IIIandIVissetaside,andtheindictmentisreinstatedonthosecounts.Thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings.CostsofthisappealshallbetaxedequallytotheStateandtothedefendant,JosephCattone,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.           JaniceM.Holder,Justice PANEL: Anderson,C.J.Drowota,Reid,Birch,J.J.