ÿWPC7 ò¡J¿´£Ê¼šØ€”æ¶Q´¶„ržgG©±p˼úç°§¤žIìÞ¿õXÿ£­rJÌ®jyvS*å ­Ô úË#(@†u…&ÆKÁ ˆ“_{bFr°tëí,[[YÚضt=ï‚Æicþ18xù‹èR òf°ß¯ßWªÔšI[žØs®” 0¸'Í6|.9Ï•LPy S4|±U¹WÅ*B®š8sWý0Î N[ˆõ!ÖP`'&µÁƒx¤„¬ìb*YÙo£GlÊò)nC7fyÏ­ß\ ›OÍâÇ¡i~Ksù¨à¸s£ @&zfÑøBG3…iŸ·~ ô« x­ÂéÚøüb¬€,õo#CIžý]ÂôØ fFð¢l)–l­gˆÇ‚Ì(­®˜}öŒÙ9ž‰O„#ƒÜ˜ƒa9ŒøG– 5/ý"‰é¤œFªõ3.8*Ö¾6„ÿ e—ä®îíyÊ•È‹>èåœ`»]51 0Ñ£X%Ë–tΔ'Ã"xHú[('϶ ¡ºktÄŽ¤2ϲ|°9>°?ø:ÈgûÁ×W¸¦Yc+ ACT†rEéhóA`ôS(ý”k–­Gõ }¡Ë×,¡oeò²(K)Ôb#É\ %% U,@+ 0§k UN ^ ` wl zp Òê 4¼ Ð ß má Æø ƾ Æ„ÆJ®N¾áÀT¡Eõt÷tkÀߟ"ų$x')Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž'Ž' 0 D·,³û,û,b®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1®1 0 ¶1¶1¶1¶1 BÂ2Â2 0Ãß2 D5¢3 D-×3 0K44 ASO4Æ¢4 0Ãh5 0D+6 A«o6˜\\ib01s01\clerk1nasÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (ðš$¡¡Ô€»Ì »»»ÔÑ€..ÑÑ8€í»»d »»d 8ÑÑ ýý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular ®1î  ˜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.wptINŽ1ê:i¢Ø+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 NOLENSVILLEHeldmanDrowotaAdolphoHerbisonNotestineNatlSp.J. ×Ý ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„3„101€et.€seq.€(2000). JÝ ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThis€case€was€heard€on€October€8,€2004€at€the€Williamson€County€Courthouse€in€Franklin,€Tennessee€as€partÐ ° Ðof€the€Ô_ÔS.C.A.L.E.S.Ô_Ô€(Supreme€Court€Advancing€Legal€Education€for€Students)€project.€€Since€the€program€began€inÐ tÄ ÐOctober€1995€more€than€14,000€students€have€participated€in€Ô_ÔS.C.A.L.E.S.Ô_Ô€projects€across€the€State.òòóó jÝ ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔWhile€the€appellee€argues€that€our€holding€today€should€not€be€applied€retroactively€to€the€present€case,€weÐ ° Ðnote€that€this€case€was€in€the€appeals€process€when€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davis€óó,€54€S.W.3dÐ tÄ Ð248€(Tenn.€2001)€was€handed€down.€€At€that€time,€we€directed€the€Court€of€Appeals€to€reconsider€its€earlier€decisionÐ 8ˆ Ðin€appellantððs€case€in€light€of€the€holding€in€òòDavisóó.€€As€the€present€case€has€been€under€review€in€the€appeals€processÐ üL Ðduring€this€entire€time,€our€holding€today€is€properly€applied€to€this€case€without€implicating€the€issue€of€retroactiveÐ À Ðapplication. jÝ ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThis€Court€originally€granted€an€application€to€appeal€in€this€case€in€2001.€€Thereafter,€in€October€of€2001,Ð ° Ðwe€remanded€the€case€to€the€Court€of€Appeals€with€directions€to€reconsider€the€case€in€light€of€our€then€recent€opinionÐ tÄ Ðin€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€248€(Tenn.€2001).€€The€Court€of€Appeals€handed€down€a€second€opinion,Ð 8ˆ Ðand€it€is€this€latter€opinion€which€we€now€review. ¶Ý ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Town€of€Nolensville€municipal€ordinance,€as€amended,€provides€in€part:€Ð ° Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à8 ` àà8¸ ` x` xàÐtĸ ¸  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€à8  à€€€€€€€€€€à8` Ð Ð àòòSection€4.€Overgrown€and€dirty€lotsóó.€€It€shall€be€unlawful€for€any€owner€of€recordÐ 8ˆ Ðof€real€property€to€create,€maintain,€or€permit€to€be€maintained€on€such€property€theÐ üL Ðgrowth€of€trees,€vines,€grass,€underbrush€and/or€the€accumulation€of€debris,€trash,Ð À Ðlitter,€or€garbage€or€any€combination€of€the€preceding€elements€so€as€to€endangerÐ „Ô Ðthe€health,€safety,€or€welfare€of€other€citizens€or€to€encourage€the€infestation€of€ratsÐ H ˜ Ðand€other€harmful€animals.Ð \` x` x Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€.€.€.€.Ð Ð  ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à8 ` àòòSection€7.€€Abandoned€and/or€unusable€automobiles€and€motor€vehicles€and€storageÐ X ¨  Ðtrailersóó.Ð l ` x` x ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à8 ` àIt€shall€be€unlawful€for€any€persons€to€place€or€allow€any€abandoned€or€unusableÐ ¤ô  Ðautomobiles,€motor€vehicles,€or€storage€trailers€to€be€stored€or€lodged€on€realÐ h¸  Ðproperty€within€the€Town€of€Nolensville.€€For€purposes€of€this€Ordinance,Ð ,|  Ðððunusableðð€shall€mean€that€said€automobile,€motor€vehicle€or€storage€trailer€is€notÐ ð@  Ðsuited€for€the€purpose€for€which€it€was€manufactured,€in€its€present€condition.д ` x` x ÐÌ€€€€€€€€€€€à8  à€€à8` Ð Ð àòòSection€8:€Violations€and€penaltyóó:€Violations€of€this€chapter€shall€be€(sic)€subjectÐ <Œ Ðthe€offender€to€a€penalty€of€up€to€five€hundred€dollars€($500)€for€each€offense.€Ð P ÐEach€day€a€violation€is€allowed€to€continue€shall€constitute€a€separate€offense.ÐÄ` x` x ÐÌNolensville,€Tenn.,€Ordinance€98„04€(as€amended)€(May€7,€1998).Ð Lœ Ð Ý ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€27„5„101€(2001).€€The€appellant€in€òòBarrettóó,€the€companion€case€to€òòDavisóó,€also€hadÐ ° Ða€statutory€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal,€although€it€was€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€27„5„108€(2000)Ð tÄ Ðbecause€the€case€initiated€in€general€sessions€court€rather€than€municipal€court.€ »Ý ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔòòDavisóó€actually€involved€two€cases:€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó€and€òòBarrett€v.€Metro.€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€of€NashvilleÐ ° Ðand€Davidson€Countyóó.€€These€cases€were€consolidated€for€consideration€on€appeal€because€they€involved€€the€same€issue.€Ð tÄ ÐòòDavisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€251.€€The€appellants€in€both€cases€had€violated€a€municipal€ordinance€and€were€subsequentlyÐ 8ˆ Ðassessed€a€fine€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars€by€a€trial€judge.€€òòId.óó€at€252,€255. Ñ ° Ñ Ý ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Court€of€Appeals€cited€òòÔ_ÔColtenÔ_Ô€v.€Kentuckyóó,€407€U.S.€104€(1972)€to€support€the€proposition€that€two„tierÐ ° Ðproceedings€are€valid.€€However,€the€issue€in€òòÔ_ÔColtenÔ_Ôóó€was€whether€a€two„tier€proceeding€violated€the€Due€Process€Clause€Ð tÄ Ðwhen€the€defendant€was€convicted€in€both€the€lower€and€higher€courts€and€assessed€a€harsher€penalty€in€the€higher€court.€Ð 8ˆ ÐòòId.óó€at€114.€€The€defendant€in€òòÔ_ÔColtenÔ_Ôóó€had€waived€his€right€to€a€jury€trial€in€the€lower€court,€thus€this€was€not€an€issue.€€òòId.óóÐ üL Ðat€113.€€òòÔ_ÔColtenÔ_Ôóó€did€not€address€the€validity€of€such€proceedings€when€a€defendant€has€an€affirmative€right€to€have€a€juryÐ À Ðassess€any€fine€exceeding€fifty€dollars.€€As€we€have€pointed€out,€this€right€provided€for€under€Article€VI,€section€14€ofÐ „Ô Ðthe€Tennessee€Constitution€is€unique€to€our€State,€and€no€comparable€provision€may€be€found€in€any€other€modernÐ H ˜ Ðconstitution.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ©Ý ƒRVº$ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€appellantððs€right€to€an€appeal€in€circuit€court€is€set€forth€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€27„5„101Ð ° Ð(2001),€which€provides:Ð tÄ ÐÌ€€€€à8  àAny€person€dissatisfied€with€the€judgment€of€a€recorder€or€other€officer€of€a€municipality€charged€withÐ üL Ðthe€conduct€of€trials,€in€a€civil€action,€may,€within€ten€(10)€days€thereafter,€Sundays€exclusive,€appealÐ À Ðto€the€next€term€of€circuit€court.ЄÔÐ Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€€The€appeal€in€circuit€court€is€subject€to€the€same€terms€and€restrictions€as€an€appeal€from€sessions€court,€whichÐ  \ Ðincludes€de€novo€review.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€27„5„102,€27„5„108(c);€òòState€v.€Cunninghamóó,€972€S.W.2d€16,€18€(Tenn.Ð Ð  ÐÔ_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€App.€1998).€€Also,€a€jury€trial€will€be€provided€in€circuit€court€upon€a€timely€demand€by€the€appellant.€€òòCity€ofÐ ” ä  ÐChattanooga€v.€Myersóó,€787€S.W.2d€921,€928€(Tenn.€1990).- ù-(›I2Vº$¤¤Ý ƒðš!ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vñ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô+ò»»VñÔ€€ d(›3* $££Ý ƒðš!ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vñ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(›3* $¢¢Ý ƒðš!ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vñ»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒðš!ÝÔ€»Vñ»»»ÔÑ€.ÑÑ8€Vñ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼Vñ»»»VñÔÑ8€}XXdì»»d8ÑÑ€OYÑà@™ ™ ìàÔ‡î‚VñÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Vñ»îî‚<#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓOctober€2004€SessionÐ üL ÐHeard€at€FranklinÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ ^ ÐÔ‡X}X»¼VñÔÌÔ#†¼Vñ»XX}·#Ôò òTOWN€OF€NOLENSVILLE€v.€RONALD€M.€KINGó óÔ‡X}X»¼VñÔÐ  \ Ðò òAppeal€by€permission€from€the€Court€of€Appeals,Ð  p ЀÔ#†¼Vñ»XX}%#ÔÔ‡X}X»¼VñÔCircuit€Court€of€Williamson€CountyÐ  \ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I„99517€€€Hon.€Russ€Heldman,€JudgeÐ ø H ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<»` AßÐ ¼  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2001„02572„SC„R11„CV€„€Filed€December€16,€Ô_Ô2004Ô#†¼Vñ»XX}Ä#ÔÔ‡X}X»¼VñÔÔ_ÔÐ ·  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<Ž` AßÐ ß  Ðó óÌÌÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Vñ»XX}J#ÔÓ=€Vñ»Ð»dÐd=ÓÓÓÓÓÔ€X}X»¼VñÔThe€issue€presented€in€this€case€is€whether€a€fine€imposed€by€a€municipal€court€judge€in€violationÐ vÆ Ðof€Article€VI,€section€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€which€prohibits€the€laying€of€fines€in€excessÐ b² Ðof€fifty€dollars€unless€assessed€by€a€jury,€is€nevertheless€constitutionally€permissible€if€the€personÐ Nž Ðso€fined€has€a€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal€and€jury€trial€in€a€higher€court.€€We€hold€that€it€is€not.€€AfterÐ :Š Ðconcluding€that€this€issue€had€been€left€unresolved€by€this€Courtððs€prior€decisions,€the€Court€ofÐ &v ÐAppeals€held€that€the€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal€and€jury€trial€in€circuit€court€satisfied€theÐ b Ðconstitutional€requirements€of€Article€VI,€section€14.€€We€respectfully€disagree.€€We€conclude€thatÐ þN Ðour€decision€in€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€248€(Tenn.€2001),€in€which€we€held€thatÐ ê: ÐArticle€VI,€section€14€was€applicable€to€proceedings€for€violations€of€municipal€ordinances,€compelsÐ Ö& Ða€contrary€result.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€Article€VI,€section€14€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÐ Â Ðprohibits€a€municipal€court€judge€from€imposing€fines€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars€for€the€violation€ofÐ ®þ Ða€municipal€ordinance,€irrespective€of€any€right€afforded€the€defendant€to€obtain€a€jury€trial€uponÐ šê Ðappeal€to€a€higher€court.€€Therefore,€for€the€reasons€stated€herein,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÐ †Ö ÐAppeals€is€reversed.Ð r  ÐÓêÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€Application€for€Permission€to€Appeal;€Ð J"š! ÐJudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€Reversed€ó óÐ 6#†" ÐÌòòÓ  ÓWilliam€M.€Barker,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€the€panel€ofòò€Frank€F.Ð %^ $ ÐDrowota,€III,€C.J.,€óóand€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€Janice€M.€Holderóó,€JJ.,€and€AÔ‡ô+òXX}ÔLLENÔ#†X}Xòô+_#Ô€WÔ‡ô+òXX}ÔALLACÔ#†X}Xòô+§#ÔÔ‡ô+òXX}ÔEÔ#†X}Xòô+î#Ô,€SÔ‡ô+òXX}ÔPÔ#†X}Xòô+4#Ô.J.,Ð ú%J!% Ðjoined.Ð æ&6"& ÐÌJohn€E.€Herbison,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Ronald€M.€King.Ð ¾($( ÐÐ ª)ú$)ý ÐÔ_ÔRobert€J.€Notestine€III,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Town€of€Nolensville.Ð ° ÐÌGeorge€E.€Barrett€and€Gerald€E.€Martin,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€Amicus€Curiae,€TennesseeÐ ˆØ ÐMunicipal€League.Ð tÄ ÐÌÓ Óà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ L œ ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  ÓØ -ØÓ=€Vñ»Ð-»d»Ð»d=Óà @ àà@@¥¥(ìàò òòòFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDóóÐ $ t ÐÌÓ‡Óà  àó óThis€case€initially€arose€prior€to€our€decision€in€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€and€the€currentÐ ü L  Ðappeal€marks€the€second€time€this€Court€has€reviewed€the€case.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€To€summarize€the€facts,€in€AprilÐ è 8  Ðof€1999,€the€appellant,€Ronald€M.€King,€was€cited€into€Nolensville€Municipal€Court€for€violating€aÐ Ô$  Ðcity€ordinance€which€prohibited,€among€other€things,€the€accumulation€of€trash€or€debris€or€theÐ À  Ðstorage€of€inoperative€automobiles€or€trailers€on€property€within€the€town€limits.׃ ×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò ò€€ó óTò òó óhe€appellant€had,Ð ¬ü  Ðat€that€time,€nine€inoperative€vehicles,€one€trailer,€two€piles€of€scrap€and€a€pile€of€wooden€palletsÐ œì  Ðillegally€stored€on€his€property.€€The€appellant€was€found€guilty€and€fined€fifty€dollars;€however,€theÐ ˆØ  Ðfine€was€suspended€for€thirty€days€to€give€the€appellant€an€opportunity€to€correct€the€violation.€Ð tÄ ÐApparently,€all€of€the€offending€items€were€not€removed,€and€in€May,€the€appellant€was€issued€aÐ ° Ðsecond€citation€for€having€an€inoperative€automobile,€a€trailer,€and€a€ð ðpile€of€assorted€personalÐ œì Ðbelongingsðð€stored€on€his€property€in€violation€of€the€ordinance.€€The€appellant€was€again€foundÐ ˆØ Ðguilty€in€municipal€court€but€given€another€sixty€days€in€which€to€remedy€the€violation.€€Finally,€inÐ tÄ ÐAugust€of€1999,€a€third€hearing€was€held€in€municipal€court.€€The€appellant€was€found€to€be€inÐ `° Ðcontinuing€violation€of€the€ordinance€and€fined€$300€per€day€for€each€of€the€sixty„two€days€it€wasÐ L œ Ðdetermined€he€had€been€in€violation€up€to€that€point.€€Thus,€the€total€of€the€fines€levied€against€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðappellant€was€$18,600.ò òÐ $ t Ðó óÌà  àThe€appellant€then€pursued€two€alternative€judicial€remedies€by€(1)€perfecting€a€de€novoÐ ü L  Ðappeal€and€request€for€a€jury€trial€in€circuit€court€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€27„Ð è 8  Ð5„101€(2000);€and€(2)€filing€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari€in€circuit€court€seeking€a€determinationÐ Ô$  Ðthat€the€penalties€assessed€against€him€violated€Article€VI,€section€14€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÐ À  Ðin€that€they€were€fines€exceeding€fifty€dollars€and€had€not€been€imposed€by€a€jury.€€In€a€hearing€onÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari,€the€circuit€court€concluded€that€although€the€municipal€court€hadÐ ˜è  Ðdesignated€the€assessments€as€ð ðpenalties,ðð€they€amounted€in€substance€to€fines€and€therefore€violatedÐ „Ô  ÐArticle€VI,€section€14€because€they€were€imposed€by€a€judge€rather€than€a€jury.€€Due€to€this€ruling,Ð pÀ Ðthe€circuit€court€also€dismissed€the€appeal€and€request€for€a€jury€trial€brought€under€section€27„5„101Ð \¬ Ðand€remanded€the€case€back€to€the€municipal€court€for€entry€of€a€judgment€not€to€exceed€fifty€dollars.ò òÐ H˜ ÐÌà  àó óThe€Town€of€Nolensville€appealed€to€the€Court€of€Appeals,€which€subsequently€held€that€theÐ  p Ðproceedings€in€municipal€court€were€constitutionally€permissible€as€the€monetary€assessments€wereÐ  \ Ðnot€fines€for€purposes€of€Article€VI,€section€14.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€also€held€that€the€appellantððsÐ øH Ðright€to€a€jury€assessment€of€the€fines€had€not€been€violated€because€he€could€have€obtained€a€juryÐ ä4 Ðtrial€through€the€appeals€procedure€provided€for€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€27„5„101Ð Ð  Ð(2000).׃,×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€the€Court€of€Appeals€vacated€the€order€granting€the€writ€of€certiorari.€€We€thenÐ ¼  Ðgranted€the€appellantððs€appeal.€€ò òó óBy€that€stage€in€the€proceedings,€however,€our€opinion€in€òòCity€ofÐ ¨ø ÐChattanooga€v.€Davisóó€had€been€handed€down,€and€we€therefore€remanded€the€case€back€to€the€CourtÐ ”ä Ðof€Appeals€with€directions€to€reconsider€it€in€light€of€our€recent€holding€in€òòDavisóó.ò ò€€ó óÐ €Ð Ðà  àÌà  àUpon€reconsideration,€the€Court€of€Appeals€applied€the€rule€announced€in€òòDavisóó€to€concludeÐ \ ¬ Ðthat€the€monetary€assessments€against€the€appellant€were€indeed€ð ðfinesðð€for€purposes€of€Article€VI,Ð H!˜ Ðsection€14.€€However,€the€intermediate€court€was€of€the€opinion€that€the€holding€in€òòDavisóó€had€leftÐ 4"„  Ðopen€the€question€of€whether€the€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal€and€jury€trial€in€circuit€court€protected€theÐ ° Ðappellantððs€Article€VI,€section€14€right.òòóó€€Following€an€analysis€of€the€issue,€the€Court€of€AppealsÐ œì Ðreaffirmed€its€previous€holding€that€there€had€been€no€constitutional€violation€because€the€appellantÐ ˆØ Ðcould€have€had€a€jury€set€his€fines,€if€he€so€chose,€by€pursuing€a€de€novo€appeal€to€circuit€court€andÐ tÄ Ðrequesting€a€jury€trial.€€We€then€granted€permission€to€appeal€in€order€to€clarify€our€interpretationÐ `° Ðof€Article€VI,€section€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€as€it€applies€to€proceedings€in€a€municipalÐ L œ Ðcourt.ò òÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌÓ  ÓòòANALYSISóóÐ  ` ÐÌÓ/(Óà  àó óArticle€VI,€section€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€commonly€known€as€the€Fifty€DollarÐ è 8  ÐFines€Clause,€ò òó óprovides:Ð Ô$  ÐÌà8  àNo€fine€shall€be€laid€on€any€citizen€of€this€State€that€shall€exceed€fifty€dollars,€unlessÐ ¬ü  Ðit€shall€be€assessed€by€a€jury€of€his€peers,€who€shall€assess€the€fine€at€the€time€theyÐ ˜è  Ðfind€the€fact,€if€they€think€the€fine€should€be€more€than€fifty€dollars.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌThe€constitutional€right€established€by€this€clause€is€unique€to€Tennessee€and€ð ðno€other€provisionÐ \¬ Ðlike€it€may€be€found€either€in€the€Federal€Constitution€or€in€any€other€modern€state€constitution.ðð€Ð H˜ ÐòòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó,€54€S.W.3d€248,€257€(Tenn.€2001).€Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àIn€òòDavisóó€we€addressed€the€issue€of€whether€Article€VI,€section€14€applied€to€proceedings€forÐ  \ Ðthe€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance.€€òòId.óó€at€251.€€We€held€that€Article€VI,€section€14€applied€toÐ øH Ðsuch€proceedings€when€a€monetary€sanction€imposed€for€an€ordinance€violation€was€punitive€andÐ ä4 Ðtherefore€a€ð ðfineðð€for€purposes€of€Article€VI,€section€14,€rather€than€a€remedial€measure.€€FullyÐ Ð  Ðexplained,€we€held€that€a€monetary€sanction€fell€within€the€scope€of€Article€VI,€section€14€when:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  à(1)€the€legislative€body€creating€the€sanction€primarily€intended€that€the€sanctionÐ ”ä Ðpunish€the€offender€.€.€.;€or€(2)€despite€evidence€of€remedial€intent,€the€monetaryÐ €Ð Ðsanction€is€shown€by€the€ð ðclearest€proofðð€to€be€so€punitive€in€its€actual€purpose€orÐ l¼ Ðeffect€that€it€cannot€be€legitimately€viewed€as€remedial€in€nature.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌòòId.óó€at€264.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àIn€the€case€before€us€today,€both€parties€agree€in€this€Court€that€the€sanctions€imposed€by€theÐ $X" Ðmunicipal€court€judge€were€ð ðfinesðð€within€the€meaning€of€Article€VI,€section€14.€€Therefore,€the€onlyÐ ô$D # Ðissue€we€need€address€is€whether€the€Court€of€Appeals€erred€in€holding€that€the€municipal€courtÐ à%0!$ Ðjudgeððs€assessment€of€the€fines€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars€was€constitutionally€permissible€because€theÐ Ì&"% Ðappellant€had€the€right€to€pursue€a€de€novo€appeal€and€obtain€a€jury€trial€in€circuit€court.ò òó óòòóó€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€construing€Article€VI,€section€14,€the€Court€of€Appeals€held€that€the€right€to€have€a€juryÐ )à$( Ðassess€any€fine€exceeding€fifty€dollars€was€satisfied€when€the€jury€was€obtained€òòupon€appealóó,€ratherÐ |*Ì%) Ðthan€in€the€trial€court.€€In€its€analysis,€the€Court€of€Appeals€characterized€these€proceedings€ð!ð€a€trialÐ h+¸&* Ðin€municipal€court€followed€by€a€de€novo€appeal€in€circuit€court€ð!ð€as€two„tier€proceedings,€in€whichÐ ° Ðthe€de€novo€appeal€and€jury€trial€in€the€higher€court€effectively€wiped€the€slate€clean€of€the€lowerÐ œì Ðcourtððs€judgment€and€afforded€the€appellant€the€full€panoply€of€constitutional€rights.€€As€a€result,€theÐ ˆØ ÐCourt€of€Appeals€concluded€that€the€initial€assessment€of€fines€by€the€municipal€court€judge€did€notÐ tÄ Ðviolate€Article€VI,€section€14.€€We€disagree.€€We€find€no€support€for€the€proposition€that€aÐ `° Ðconstitutional€right€of€an€individual€may€be€violated€by€a€judge€in€a€court€of€law€and€that€violationÐ L œ Ðbe€allowed€to€stand,€unless€the€aggrieved€individual€takes€affirmative€action€by€appealing€to€a€higherÐ 8 ˆ Ðcourt€for€relief.€€To€hold€that€such€a€proceeding€adequately€satisfies€an€affirmative€constitutionalÐ $ t Ðright€would€contradict€our€most€well„established€principles€of€constitutional€jurisprudence€andÐ  ` Ðfundamental€fairness.€€òòSeeóó€òòCity€of€White€House€v.€Whitleyóó,€979€S.W.2d€262,€268€(Tenn.€1998)Ð ü L  Ð(rejecting€the€proposition€that€the€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal€satisfied€the€constitutional€right€to€a€trialÐ è 8  Ðbefore€an€attorney€judge€and€stating€that€ð ðthe€due€process€violation€resulting€from€the€lack€of€anÐ Ô$  Ðattorney€judge€[in€municipal€court]€is€not€cured€by€the€statutory€right€to€a€de€novo€appealðð).Ð À  ÐÌà  àThe€Court€of€Appealsðð€characterization€of€the€municipal€court€trial€as€being€part€of€a€validÐ ˜è  Ðtwo„tier€proceeding€is€inappropriate€in€this€instance€because€the€municipal€court€lacked€any€abilityÐ „Ô  Ðto€provide€for€the€appellantððs€Article€VI,€section€14€right.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Not€only€was€the€municipal€court€judgeÐ pÀ Ðexpressly€prohibited€by€Article€VI,€section€14€from€imposing€the€fines€in€issue,€but€the€court€alsoÐ \¬ Ðlacked€the€authority€to€either€empanel€a€jury€or€transfer€the€case€to€a€higher€court€where€a€jury€wasÐ H˜ Ðavailable.€€This€is€the€same€factual€scenario€with€which€we€were€confronted€in€òòDavisóó.׃°×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€appellantÐ 4„ Ðin€òòDavisóó€had€been€found€guilty€in€municipal€court€of€violating€a€Chattanooga€municipal€ordinance.€Ð  p ÐòòDavisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€252.€€The€municipal€court€judge€subsequently€assessed€a€$300€fine.€€òòId.óó€€UponÐ  \ Ðappeal,€we€held€that€the€assessment€of€such€a€fine€violated€Article€VI,€section€14€of€the€TennesseeÐ øH ÐConstitution.€€In€reaching€this€conclusion€this€Court€stated:Ð ä4 ÐÌà8  àAssuming€presently€that€the€General€Assembly€has€granted€the€Chattanooga€CityÐ ¼  ÐCouncil€authority€to€enact€punitive€sanctions€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars,€we€have€beenÐ ¨ø Ðunable€to€locate€any€statute€that€confers€upon€the€Chattanooga€City€Court€the€powerÐ ”ä Ðor€authority€to€empanel€a€jury€for€this€purpose.€.€.€.€Therefore,€irrespective€of€any€cityÐ €Ð Ðâ âordinance€to€the€contrary,€the€discretion€of€the€Chattanooga€City€Court€to€imposeÐ l¼ Ðpunitive€monetary€sanctions€is€necessarily€limited€by€Article€VI,€section€14€to€finesÐ ° Ðnot€exceeding€fifty€dollars.ÐœìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòId.óó€at€267.€€Consequently,€the€Court€reduced€the€fine€assessed€by€the€trial€judge€to€fifty€dollars,€ð ðtheÐ tÄ Ðmaximum€assessment€allowed€under€such€circumstances€by€Article€VI,€section€14.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€281„82.€Ð `° ÐÌÌà  àWe€point€out€that€the€appellant€in€òòDavisóó€had€the€same€statutory€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal€inÐ $ t Ðcircuit€court€as€does€the€appellant€in€the€present€case.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Nevertheless,€the€availability€of€a€jury€trialÐ  ` Ðupon€appeal€did€not€affect€our€analysis€in€òòDavisóó€of€whether€Article€VI,€section€14€had€been€violated.€Ð ü L  ÐBy€reducing€the€fines€in€both€cases€considered€in€òòDavisóó€to€fifty€dollars,€this€Court€clearly€concludedÐ è 8  Ðthat€the€trial€courts€were€constrained€by€Article€VI,€section€14€of€our€Constitution€from€imposingÐ Ô$  Ðfines€exceeding€fifty€dollars€in€these€cases.€€Presented€with€the€same€factual€scenario€today,€weÐ À  Ðlikewise€apply€the€same€reasoning€and€reach€the€same€conclusion.€€Because€the€NolensvilleÐ ¬ü  ÐMunicipal€Court€judge€lacked€the€authority€to€empanel€a€jury€to€assess€fines,€the€courtððs€power€toÐ ˜è  Ðassess€fines€in€this€case€was€limited€by€Article€VI,€section€14€to€fines€not€exceeding€fifty€dollars.€Ð „Ô  ÐòòDavisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€267.€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àBy€so€stating,€we€do€not€hold€that€fines€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars€may€never€be€imposed€byÐ H˜ Ðjudges€rather€than€juries.€€Judges€may€impose€fines€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars€so€long€as€the€defendantÐ 4„ Ðwaives€his€or€her€right€to€a€jury€determination€of€fines€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars.€€The€defendant€mayÐ  p Ðvoluntarily€relinquish€his€or€her€constitutional€right€to€jury€determination€of€fines€greater€than€fiftyÐ  \ Ðdollars€by€executing€a€written€waiver€consistent€with€the€provisions€of€Rule€5(c)€of€the€TennesseeÐ øH ÐRules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€governing€waivers€of€the€right€to€a€trial€by€jury€and€to€a€grand€juryÐ ä4 Ðinvestigation.€€òòSeeóó€òòCity€of€White€Houseóó,€979€S.W.2d€at€268.€€This€is€precisely€the€procedureÐ Ð  Ðemployed€in€general€sessions€courts€when€defendants€are€charged€with€misdemeanor€state€offenses.€Ð ¼  ÐIf€a€defendant€in€general€sessions€court€executes€a€waiver€of€his€or€her€right€to€a€jury,€the€court€mayÐ ¨ø Ðhear€the€case,€determine€guilt,€and€impose€punishment.€€If,€however,€a€defendant€chooses€not€toÐ ”ä Ðwaive€his€or€her€right€to€a€jury,€the€general€sessions€court€has€no€option€other€than,€upon€a€findingÐ €Ð Ðof€probable€cause,€to€bind€the€case€over€for€a€grand€jury€investigation.€€If€the€grand€jury€returns€anÐ l¼ Ðindictment,€a€jury€trial€may€be€held.€€Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àIn€contrast,€a€municipal€court€has€no€option€but€to€fully€adjudicate€the€case,€even€when€theÐ 0"€  Ðdefendant€requests€a€jury€trial.€€Therefore,€while€we€agree€that€the€right€to€a€jury€determination€ofÐ #l! Ðfines€may€be€waived,€we€cannot€envision€that€a€defendant€in€municipal€court€would€knowingly€waiveÐ $X" Ðthis€constitutional€right,€and€thereby€allow€the€court€to€impose€a€fine€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars,€whenÐ ô$D # Ðthe€alternative€would€be€either€a€fine€of€fifty€dollars€or€less€or€dismissal€of€the€case.òòóó€€€€€€€€€òòóóÐ à%0!$ Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% ÐÑOYÑâ âÑ°°Ñâ âÑ  Ñà  àòòóóò òó óAccordingly,€for€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€hold€that€Article€VI,€section€14€of€theÐ ° Ðâ âTennessee€Constitution€prohibits€a€municipal€court€judge€from€imposing€fines€in€excess€of€fiftyÐ œì Ðdollars€for€a€violation€of€a€municipal€ordinance,€absent€a€valid€waiver€of€the€defendantððs€Article€VI,Ð ˆØ Ðsection€14€right.€€This€limitation€applies€irrespective€of€any€right€affording€the€offender€a€right€to€aÐ tÄ Ðde€novo€appeal€and€jury€trial€in€circuit€court.€€In€the€present€case,€we€reduce€the€appellantððs€fines€toÐ `° Ðfifty€dollars€for€each€offense,€the€maximum€the€municipal€court€judge€could€have€imposed.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óóÐ L œ Ðat€267;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHuffman€v.€Stateóó,€292€S.W.2d€738,€744€(Tenn.€1956)€(stating€that€it€is€duty€ofÐ 8 ˆ Ðappellate€court€to€reduce€fine€to€fifty€dollars€to€remedy€Article€VI,€section€14€violation),€òòoverruledÐ $ t Ðon€other€groundsóó;€òòState€v.€Irvinóó,€603€S.W.2d€121,€123€(Tenn.€1980).€€Because€the€ordinance€at€issueÐ  ` Ðprescribes€that€each€day€in€violation€constitutes€a€separate€offense,€the€appropriate€fine€is€fifty€dollarsÐ ü L  Ðper€day€for€each€of€the€sixty„two€days€the€appellant€was€found€to€be€in€violation,€resulting€in€a€totalÐ è 8  Ðfine€of€$3,100€assessed€against€the€appellant.׃×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òÐ Ô$  ÐÌà  àó óWe€stress€that€our€holding€today,€along€with€our€previous€holding€in€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.Ð ¬ü  ÐDavisóó,€applies€only€to€òòpunitiveóó€monetary€sanctions€and€preserves€a€municipalityððs€power€to€imposeÐ ˜è  Ðòòremedialóó€monetary€assessments€for€violations€of€ordinances.€€òòSeeóó€òòDavisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€259€(pointingÐ „Ô  Ðout€that€Article€VI,€section€14€does€not€apply€when€the€assessment€is€not€punitive€in€nature).€Ð pÀ ÐPrimarily€remedial€sanctions,€such€as€to€cover€the€cost€of€clean„up,€reimburse€administrative€costs,Ð \¬ Ðor€to€compensate€for€actual€loss€may€all€be€imposed€in€greater€amounts€pursuant€to€authority€grantedÐ H˜ Ðby€statute.€€Additionally,€when€confronted€with€cases€similar€to€this€one,€we€point€out€thatÐ 4„ Ðmunicipalities€continue€to€have€the€option€of€pursuing€a€remedy€through€other€courts€by€filing€suitsÐ  p Ðto€abate€a€nuisance.׃(×Ý ƒ+#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ò òÐ  \ ÐÌÓ=€Vñ»Ð»d»Ð-»d=Óà  àó óWe€are€also€not€insensitive€to€the€argument€by€both€the€appellee€and€the€Tennessee€MunicipalÐ ä4 ÐLeague€that€the€prospect€of€a€fifty€dollar€fine€in€1796,€when€this€provision€was€first€enacted,€wouldÐ Ð  Ðhave€had€a€greater€deterrent€effect€than€a€fifty€dollar€fine€in€the€present€day.€€It€is€common€knowledgeÐ ¼  Ðthat€the€real€value€of€currency€fluctuates€over€time.€€A€fifty€dollar€fine€in€contemporary€value€lacksÐ ¨ø Ðthe€weighty€and€serious€quality€a€fifty€dollar€fine€would€have€had€two€hundred€years€ago.€Ð ”ä ÐNevertheless,€there€is€no€reliable€and€proper€way€by€which€this€Court€can€translate€the€actual€valueÐ €Ð Ðof€1796€dollars€into€contemporary€dollar€amounts.€€For€this€very€reason,€it€is€unwise€for€aÐ l¼ Ðconstitution€to€include€monetary€figures,€and€it€is€no€wonder€that€Tennesseeððs€Constitution€is€theÐ X ¨ Ðonly€one€in€the€United€States€to€include€such€a€figure.€€òòDavisóó,€54€S.W.3d€at€257.€€Had€the€delegatesÐ D!” Ðto€the€Constitutional€Convention€of€1796€known€that€the€provision€would€survive€unchanged€forÐ 0"€  Ðmore€than€200€years,€they€likely€would€not€have€included€a€precise€monetary€figure.€€Nonetheless,Ð #l! Ðthis€Court€is€constrained€to€uphold€the€plain€language€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€ProposedÐ $X" Ðchanges€to€the€Fifty€Dollar€Fines€provision€must€be€addressed€in€a€different€forum.€€The€GeneralÐ ° ÐAssembly€and€the€citizens€of€Tennessee,€not€this€Court,€have€it€in€their€power,€if€they€so€desire,€toÐ œì Ðamend€the€constitution€and€change€the€fifty€dollar€provision€of€Article€VI,€section€14.€Ð ˆØ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòCONCLUSIONó óóóÐ `° ÐÌÓŽbÓà  àIn€summary,€we€reaffirm€our€previous€decision€in€òòCity€of€Chattanooga€v.€Davisóó€in€which€weÐ 8 ˆ Ðheld€that€Article€VI,€section€14€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€applies€to€proceedings€involving€theÐ $ t Ðviolation€of€municipal€ordinances€when€either€the€intended€purpose€or€the€actual€purpose€or€effectÐ  ` Ðof€the€monetary€sanctions€is€punitive.€€We€further€hold€that€Article€VI,€section€14€prohibits€aÐ ü L  Ðmunicipal€court€judge€from€imposing€fines€in€excess€of€fifty€dollars€in€such€proceedings,€irrespectiveÐ è 8  Ðof€whether€the€person€so€fined€has€the€right€to€a€de€novo€appeal€and€jury€trial€in€a€higher€court.€Ð Ô$  ЀÌà  àWith€respect€to€the€case€at€bar,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€and€weÐ ¬ü  Ðreduce€the€fines€imposed€against€the€appellant,€Ronald€M.€King,€to€fifty€dollars€for€each€offense,€theÐ ˜è  Ðmaximum€amount€allowed€under€Article€VI,€section€14.€€The€appellant€was€found€to€be€in€violationÐ „Ô  Ðof€the€ordinance€in€question€for€sixty„two€days,€with€each€day€in€violation€constituting€a€separateÐ pÀ Ðoffense.€€Therefore,€the€appellantððs€fines€are€reduced€to€fifty€dollars€per€day€for€sixty„two€days,Ð \¬ Ðresulting€in€a€total€amount€of€$3,100.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€Town€of€Nolensville.€€€€Ð  p ÐÌà€(#(#K(#àˆÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð ä4 Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€_____________________________________Ð Ð  Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€WILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUSTICEÐ ¼  ÐÌÓ  Óò òÌà€ @ àÌÓ'jÓà  àÌà  àÌÌÌà  àÌÌà  àÌà  àÌÌà  àÌà  àÌà  àó óÌÌÓhÓ