ÿWPC-* b#Ál %- 0 ˆ3UN»^ w zÒ“4e y ˆ mŠ Æ¡ Æg Æ- Æó 0D¹ Ný Eÿ 0J 0TK 0^Ÿ 0hý e 0rm 0|ß 0†[ 0á 1uq 0dæU>JU*ˆb²ŽºýHÉEÓþá^ßv~=vÓ» 0ëŽ% By& 0@–& D3Ö& D- ' 0K6' AS'ÆÔ' 0¤š( 0D>) A«‚)˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5eÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular¦i'+s  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÑB+xÑ¡k13|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô 2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô !"# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Times- ù- „Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€,ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThese€facts€were€largely€stipulated€by€the€defense€and€the€State€at€the€hearing€on€Simmonsððs€motion€toÏdismiss.€€Ì óÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€,ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Ô_ÔcapiasÔ_Ô€also€listed€the€aliases€Jonathan€Brown€and€Kevin€Michael€Black,€but€the€record€is€clear€thatÏSimmons€was€incarcerated€under€the€name,€Michael€Simmons.€€These€aliases€played€no€role€in€the€delay.€Ì ¿Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€,ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€rule€provides€in€pertinent€part:€€ð ðAn€appeal€lies€from€any€order€or€judgment€in€a€criminal€proceedingÏwhere€the€law€provides€for€such€appeal,€and€from€any€judgment€of€conviction:(2)€upon€a€plea€of€guilty€.€.€.€if:Ï[d]efendant€entered€into€a€plea€agreement€under€Rule€11(e)€but€explicitly€reserved€with€the€consent€of€the€state€and€ofÏthe€court€the€right€to€appeal€a€certified€question€of€law€that€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€.€.€.ðð€Ì ÉÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€,ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€provision€is€applicable€to€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment€to€the€United€StatesÏConstitution.€€òòKlopfer€v.€North€Carolinaóó,€386€U.S.€213,€87€S.€Ct.€988,€18€L.€Ed.2d€1€(1967).€Ì ôÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€,ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔLikewise,€there€is€no€statute€prohibiting€concurrent€sentences€or€requiring€consecutive€sentences.€Such€aÏstatute€obviously€would€end€the€inquiry€as€the€defendant€would€be€unable€to€claim€even€the€lost€possibility€ofÏconcurrent€sentencing.Ì TÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÑ#€d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒR$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€,ôÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€this€Court€counsel€for€Simmons€argues€that€the€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€was€notÏproperly€put€into€evidence€at€the€hearing€on€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€Given€that€defense€counsel€did€not€object€to€theÏnotice€when€the€State€mentioned€it€and€relied€upon€it€during€the€hearing€before€the€trial€court,€we€must€disagree.ÌPtPtHHØ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  Serv Geneva ÒÒ  Serv Geneva Ò(|G2*ß$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@õ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôéýò»»Ô d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 h$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€@õ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€,ÔÔ€,¼ÔÑ#€--¼d#ÑÑ#€--¼d#ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ8€ 9XXdì»»d8ÑØ ØÓ&€--¼Ðd&Óà@ àÔ€,îÔIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÔ€,¼ÔÌÓ  ÓJune€13,€2001€SessionÌÔ€,XÔÌò òÔ€,¼ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€MICHAEL€D.€SIMMONSó óÌÌà@ àò òÔ€,XÔAppeal€by€Permission€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÌNo.€95„C„1609€€€€€€Seth€Norman,€JudgeÌÌÌà@ àßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÌÌà@ àNo.€M1999„00099„SC„R11„CD€„€Filed€September€7,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÌÌßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÌó óÌÓ  ÓAppellant,€Michael€Ô_ÔDewayneÔ_Ô€Simmons,€pled€guilty€to€felony€theft€of€property€and€aggravatedÏrobbery€but€reserved€for€appeal€pursuant€to€Tennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€37(b)(2)(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€theÏfollowing€certified€question€of€law:€€whether€the€defendant€was€denied€his€federal€and€stateÏconstitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€concluded€that€Simmons€hadÏnot€been€deprived€of€his€speedy€trial€right.€€We€granted€Simmonsðð€application€for€permission€toÏappeal€to€determine€whether€a€speedy€trial€violation€occurred€in€this€case€where€the€only€prejudiceÏallegedly€resulting€from€the€delay€is€the€defendantððs€lost€possibility€of€concurrent€sentencing€with€aÏsentence€imposed€for€a€prior€unrelated€offense.€€Because€the€delay€of€twenty„three€months€was€notÏegregious,€the€reason€for€the€delay€was€negligence€or€administrative€oversight,€and€the€onlyÏprejudice€alleged€is€the€lost€possibility€of€serving€a€concurrent€sentence,€we€conclude€that€theÏdefendantððs€right€to€a€speedy€trial€has€not€been€violated.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€ofÏthe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€upholding€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€the€defendantððs€motion€toÏdismiss.ÌÓ  ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€11;€Judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€Affirmedó óÌÌÓ  ÓòòFrank€F.€Drowota,€III,€Jóó.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòE.€Riley€Anderson,€C.J.,ÏAdolpho€A.€Birch,€Jr.,€Janice€M.€Holderóó€and€òòWilliam€M.€Barkeróó,€JJ.,€joined.ÌÌCynthia€F.€Burnes,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,€Michael€D.€Simmons.€ÌÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter;€Michael€E.€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Jennifer€L.ÏSmith,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€Victor€S.€Johnson,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€Lisa€Ô_ÔNaylorÔ_Ô,ÏAssistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.€ÌÓ  ÓÌÌà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌòòò òÌÌÌÌBackgroundóóó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€facts€are€largely€undisputed.Ô_Ô× ƒ/ ××  ×Ô_Ô€€On€May€30,€1994,€the€theft€and€aggravated€robbery€wereÏcommitted.€€On€January€17,€1995,€Simmons€was€incarcerated€on€an€unrelated€parole€offense€in€theÏTennessee€Department€of€Correction€(ð ðÔ_ÔT.D.O.C.Ô_Ôðð).€€On€July€14,€1995,€the€Davidson€CountyÏGrand€Jury€in€a€two„count€sealed€indictment€charged€Simmons€with€committing€the€theft€andÏaggravated€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„14„103€and€„402.€€A€Ô_ÔcapiasÔ_Ô€was€issued€in€theÏname€of€Michael€Simmons,Ô_Ô× ƒ0 ××  ×Ô_Ô€and€the€last€known€address€listed€on€the€Ô_ÔcapiasÔ_Ô€was€ð ðthe€DavidsonÏCounty€Sheriffððs€Department.ðð€€However,€Simmons€was€not€served€with€the€Ô_ÔcapiasÔ_Ô€nor€was€aÏÔ_ÔdetainerÔ_Ô€filed€against€him.€€On€June€9,€1997,€Simmons€was€released€on€parole€for€the€unrelatedÏoffense.€€Eleven€days€later,€June€20,€1997,€Simmons€was€arrested€on€another€unrelated€charge.€€AtÏthat€time,€Simmons€was€served€with€the€Ô_ÔcapiasÔ_Ô€that€had€issued€on€the€theft€and€aggravated€robberyÏcharges€that€are€the€subject€of€this€appeal.ÌÌà àOn€September€24,€1997,€Simmons€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€the€charges,€alleging€that€heÏhad€been€deprived€of€his€statutory€and€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€Specifically,€SimmonsÏclaimed€that€he€had€been€prejudiced€by€the€delay€of€twenty„three€months€between€the€return€of€theÏindictment€and€his€arrest€because€he€had€lost€the€possibility€of€serving€the€sentences€for€theseÏoffenses€concurrently€with€the€sentence€imposed€for€the€prior€unrelated€parole€offense.€€€SimmonsÏdid€not€assert€that€the€delay€impaired€his€defense€in€any€way.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€denied€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€Simmons€pled€guilty€to€both€offenses,€andÏthereafter,€at€the€recommendation€of€the€assistant€district€attorney€general,€was€treated€as€a€multiple,ÏRange€II€offender€and€given€a€six€year€sentence€for€the€theft€conviction€and€a€twelve€year€sentenceÏfor€the€aggravated€robbery€conviction.€€These€sentences€were€concurrent€with€each€other€and€withÏanother€sentence€for€an€unrelated€parole€offense.€€Simmons€reserved€his€right€to€appeal€theÏfollowing€certified€question€of€law€pursuant€to€Tennessee€€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€37(b)(2)(i)× ƒ1 ××  ×:Ïwhether€he€was€denied€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€as€a€result€of€the€almost€two„year€delay€betweenÏthe€return€of€the€indictment€and€service€of€the€capias.ÌÌà àAfter€balancing€the€factors€set€forth€in€òòBarker€v.€Wingoóó,€407€U.S.€514,€92€S.€Ct.€2182,€33ÏL.€Ed.2d€101€(1972),€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€GivenÏthe€prosecutionððs€stated€intention€of€seeking€enhanced€punishment,€the€Court€of€Criminal€AppealsÏfound€unpersuasive€the€defendantððs€argument€that€he€had€been€prejudiced€by€the€lost€possibility€ofÏserving€his€sentence€concurrently.€€We€granted€the€defendantððs€application€for€permission€to€appealÏand€now€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌà@ àò òòòSpeedy€Trialóóó óÌà àThe€Sixth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€provides€that€"in€all€criminalÏprosecutions,€the€accused€shall€enjoy€the€right€to€a€speedy€and€public€trial."€€U.S.€Const.€amend.ÏVI.Ô_Ô× ƒ2 ××  ×Ô_Ô€€Similarly,€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€"in€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accusedÏhath€the€right€to€.€.€.€a€speedy€public€trial."€€€Tenn.€Const.€€Art.€I,€ðð€9;€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„14„101("In€all€criminal€prosecutions,€the€accused€is€entitled€to€a€speedy€trial....").ÌÌà àThe€speedy€trial€guarantee€is€designed€to€protect€the€accused€from€oppressive€pre„trialÏincarceration,€the€anxiety€and€concern€due€to€unresolved€criminal€charges,€and€the€risk€that€theÏaccusedððs€defense€will€be€impaired€by€dimming€memories€or€lost€evidence.€€€òòSeeóó€òòDoggett€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€505€U.S.€647,€654,€112€S.€Ct.€2686,€2692,€120€L.€Ed.2d€520€(1992);€òòState€v.€Utleyóó,€956ÏS.W.2d€489,€492€(Tenn.€1997).€€Both€the€federal€and€state€constitutional€provisions€apply,€by€theirÏown€terms,€to€persons€ð ðaccusedðð€in€a€ð ðcriminal€prosecution.ðð€€Therefore,€these€constitutionalÏrights€are€implicated€only€when€there€is€an€arrest€or€a€formal€accusation.€€òòSeeóó€òòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€atÏ491.€€In€€òòBarkeróó,€òòsupraóó,€the€Supreme€Court€enunciated€the€following€four„factor€balancing€test€forÏcourts€to€apply€when€evaluating€a€speedy€trial€claim:€(1)€the€length€of€the€delay;€(2)€the€reason€forÏthe€delay;€(3)€the€defendant's€assertion€of€the€right;€€and€(4)€the€prejudice€suffered€by€the€defendantÏfrom€the€delay.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192.€€This€Court€adopted€the€òòBarkeróó€analysisÏin€òòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83„85€(Tenn.€1973),€and€we€have€applied€it€in€subsequent€cases.€ÏòòSee,€e.g.óó€òòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€492;€òòState€v.€Woodóó,€924€S.W.2d€342€(Tenn.€1996).ÌÌà àThis€balancing€test€ð ðnecessarily€compels€courts€to€approach€speedy€trial€cases€on€an€ad€hocÏbasis.ðð€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192.€€If€a€court€determines€after€applying€thisÏbalancing€test€that€a€defendant€has€been€denied€a€speedy€trial,€the€remedy€is€reversal€of€theÏconviction€and€dismissal€of€the€criminal€charges.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.€S.€at€522,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2188;ÏòòState€v.€Bishopóó,€493€S.W.2d€81,€83„85€(Tenn.€1973).€€With€these€principles€in€mind,€we€turn€toÏSimmonsððs€claim€that€he€was€denied€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€€à àÌÌà@ àòòA.€€Length€of€the€DelayóóÌà àWe€consider€first€the€length€of€the€delay.€€Until€there€is€some€delay€which€is€presumptivelyÏprejudicial,€it€is€not€necessary€to€inquire€into€the€other€balancing€factors€of€the€speedy€trial€analysis.€ÏòòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€530,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192;€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€346.€€Generally,€post„accusationÏdelay€must€approach€one€year€to€trigger€a€speedy€trial€inquiry.€€òòSeeóó€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€652,€n.1,Ï112€S.€Ct.€at€2691,€n.1;€òòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2d€at€494.€€The€reasonableness€of€the€length€of€the€delayÏdepends€upon€the€complexity€and€nature€of€the€case,€but€the€presumption€that€delay€has€prejudicedÏthe€accused€intensifies€over€time.€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€652,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2691;€òòUtleyóó,€956€S.W.2dÏat€494;€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€346.ÌÌà àWhile€the€approximate€twenty„three€month€delay€between€the€return€of€the€indictment€andÏthe€defendantððs€arrest€is€sufficient€to€trigger€the€speedy€trial€analysis,€this€period€of€delay€is€notÏnecessarily€unreasonable€when€compared€to€other€cases.€€òòCompareóó€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€346Ï(delay€of€thirteen€years);€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€653,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2694€(delay€of€six€years).€€ÌÌà àà@ àòòB.€€Reason€for€DelayóóÌà àNext€we€consider€the€reason€for€the€delay.€€This€factor€generally€falls€into€one€of€fourÏcategories:€(1)€intentional€delay€to€gain€a€tactical€advantage€or€to€harass€the€defendant;€(2)Ïbureaucratic€indifference€or€negligence,€including€overcrowded€dockets€or€lack€of€diligence;€(3)Ïdelay€necessary€to€the€fair€and€effective€prosecution€of€the€case,€such€as€locating€a€missing€witness;Íand€(4)€delay€caused,€or€acquiesced,€in€by€the€defense,€including€good€faith€attempts€to€plea„bargainÏor€repeated€defense€requests€for€continuances.€€òòSeeóó€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192;ÏòòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€346„47.ÌÌà àThe€record€reflects€that€the€delay€in€this€case€resulted€from€negligence€on€the€part€of€StateÏofficials.€€Simmons€was€incarcerated€with€T.D.O.C.€when€the€indictment€was€returned,€and€theÏcapias€listed€his€address€as€ð ðc/o€Davidson€County€Sheriffððs€Department.ðð€€There€is€no€indicationÏin€the€record€that€the€State€ever€attempted€to€serve€the€defendant€while€he€was€incarcerated.€€At€theÏhearing€on€the€motion€to€dismiss,€the€Assistant€District€Attorney€General€offered€no€reason€for€theÏdelay€except€ð ðoversight.ðð€€Although€the€delay€was€not€intentional,€this€factor€weighs€against€theÏState€to€some€extent€because€ð ð[a]€defendant€has€no€duty€to€bring€himself€to€trial;€the€State€has€thatÏduty.€.€.€.ðð€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.€S.€at€527,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2190.€ÌÌà àHowever,€when€the€reason€for€the€delay€is€negligence,€the€weight€to€be€assigned€this€factorÏdiffers€depending€upon€the€length€of€the€delay.€€As€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€explained,Ïð ðour€toleration€of€such€negligence€varies€inversely€with€its€protractedness€and€its€consequent€threatÏto€the€fairness€of€the€accusedððs€trial.ðð€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€656,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2693.€€The€eight€andÏone„half€year€delay€at€issue€in€òòDoggettóó€was€far€longer€than€the€threshold€necessary€to€triggerÏspeedy€trial€review.€€In€contrast,€the€delay€in€this€case€was€not€nearly€as€protracted€and€did€notÏgreatly€exceed€the€triggering€threshold;€€therefore,€this€factor€does€not€weigh€heavily€against€theÏState.€ÌÌà@ àòòC.€€Assertion€of€RightóóÌà àAnother€factor€to€consider€in€the€overall€balance€is€a€defendantððs€assertion€or€failure€toÏassert€the€right€to€a€speedy€trial.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€531„32,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2192„93;€òòWoodóó,€924ÏS.W.2d€at€347.€€Assertion€of€the€right€is€entitled€to€strong€weight€in€favor€of€the€defendant,€whileÏfailure€to€assert€the€right€ordinarily€will€make€it€difficult€to€prove€that€the€right€has€been€denied.€€òòId.óó€ÏHowever,€an€accused€who€is€unaware€of€pending€charges€because€the€indictment€has€been€sealed€orÏnot€served€cannot€be€penalized€for€failure€to€assert€the€speedy€trial€right.€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.€S.€at€Ï653„54,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2691;€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€347,€n.13.ÌÌà àIn€this€case,€the€State€concedes€that€Simmons€was€unaware€of€the€charges€contained€in€theÏsealed€indictment€until€he€was€arrested€almost€two€years€after€its€return.€€Therefore,€SimmonsÏcannot€be€penalized€for€failing€to€assert€his€speedy€trial€right€earlier.ÌÌà@ àòòD.€€PrejudiceóóÌà àThe€final€and€most€important€factor€in€the€analysis€is€whether€the€accused€suffered€prejudiceÏfrom€the€delay.€€òòBarkeróó,€407€U.S.€at€532,€92€S.€Ct.€at€2193;€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€348;€òòBishopóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€85.€€Courts€do€not€necessarily€require€a€defendant€to€affirmatively€prove€particularizedÏprejudice.€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€654„55;€òòWoodóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€348.€€€However,€when€evaluatingÏthis€factor€courts€must€be€aware€that€the€speedy€trial€right€is€designed:€(1)€to€prevent€undue€andÏoppressive€incarceration€prior€to€trial;€(2)€to€minimize€anxiety€and€concern€accompanying€publicÏaccusation;€and€(3)€to€limit€the€possibilities€that€long€delay€will€impair€the€defense.€€òòBishopóó,€493ÏS.W.2d€at€85.€€ÌÌà àWe€will€first€consider€the€second€and€third€interests.€€Simmons€clearly€was€not€aware€of€theÏcharges€contained€in€the€sealed€indictment;€therefore,€he€did€not€suffer€anxiety€and€concern€from€theÏunresolved€criminal€charges.€€òòDoggettóó,€505€U.S.€at€655,€112€S.€Ct.€at€2692.€€In€addition,€SimmonsÏdoes€not€claim€that€the€delay€impaired€his€ability€to€defend€against€the€charges.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€Simmons€claims€that€he€was€prejudiced€by€the€delay€because€he€was€deprived€ofÏthe€possibility€of€serving€these€sentences€concurrently€with€the€sentence€he€was€then€serving€on€theÏunrelated€parole€offense.€€In€our€view,€this€claim€implicates€the€first€interest,€prevention€of€undueÏand€oppressive€pretrial€incarceration.ÌÌà àIn€òòSmith€v.€Hooeyóó,€393€U.S.€374,€375,€89€S.€Ct.€575,€21€L.€Ed.2d€607€(1969),€the€UnitedÏState€Supreme€Court€considered€whether€a€State€must€honor€the€federal€constitutional€speedy€trialÏguarantee€when€the€accused€is€serving€a€prison€sentence€imposed€by€another€jurisdiction.€€The€StateÏof€Texas€charged€Smith€with€theft,€but€at€the€time€the€indictment€was€returned,€Smith€was€a€prisonerÏin€the€federal€penitentiary€at€Leavenworth,€Kansas.€€Smith€mailed€letters€to€the€Texas€trial€courtÏasserting€his€right€to€a€speedy€trial€on€the€theft€charge,€but€the€trial€court€replied€that€ð ðhe€would€beÏafforded€a€trial€within€two€weeks€of€any€date€[he]€might€specify€at€which€he€could€be€present.ðð€€òòId.óó€ÏThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€Texas€was€required€to€honor€the€speedy€trial€guaranteeÏdespite€the€fact€that€Smith€was€incarcerated€in€another€jurisdiction.€€In€so€holding,€the€CourtÏidentified€the€lost€possibility€of€concurrent€sentencing€as€one€harm€that€could€result€to€anÏincarcerated€prisoner€and€said€this€lost€possibility€relates€to€the€interest€in€avoiding€undue€andÏoppressive€pretrial€incarceration.€€Specifically,€the€Court€stated€as€follows:ÌÌà8 àAt€first€blush€it€might€appear€that€a€man€already€in€prison€under€a€lawful€sentence€isÏhardly€in€a€position€to€suffer€from€ð ðundue€and€oppressive€incarceration€prior€toÏtrial.ðð€€But€the€fact€that€delay€in€bringing€such€a€person€to€trial€on€a€pending€chargeÏmay€ultimately€result€in€as€much€oppression€as€is€suffered€by€one€who€is€jailedÏwithout€bail€upon€an€untried€charge.€€First,€the€possibility€that€the€defendant€alreadyÏin€prison€might€receive€a€sentence€at€least€partially€concurrent€with€the€one€he€isÏserving€may€be€forever€lost€if€trial€of€the€pending€charge€is€postponed.€€ÌòòÌId.óó€at€378,€89€S.€Ct.€at€577.€€Therefore,€Simmonsððs€assertion€that€a€court€must€consider€theÏdefendantððs€interest€in€obtaining€concurrent€sentencing€when€conducting€a€speedy€trial€analysis€isÏcorrect.€€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Wallaceóó,€648€S.W.2d€264,€270€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980)€(discussing€thisÏinterest€in€the€speedy€trial€context).€€However,€we€do€not€agree€that€the€lost€possibility€of€concurrentÏsentencing€is€enough€in€and€of€itself€to€require€dismissal€on€speedy€trial€grounds.ÌÌà àSimmons€has€not€established€that€he€would€have€obtained€concurrent€sentences.€€ForÏexample,€there€is€no€statute€mandating€concurrent€sentences.× ƒ3 ××  ×€Simmons€also€has€not€establishedÏthat,€under€the€statutory€sentencing€scheme,€he€probably€would€have€obtained€concurrent€sentences,Ïor€that€he€was€a€favorable€candidate€for€concurrent€sentencing.€€In€fact,€the€State€contends€thatÏSimmons€was€not€likely€to€obtain€concurrent€sentencing€had€he€gone€to€trial,€and€the€State€pointsÏout€that€it€had€filed€a€notice€of€intent€to€seek€enhanced€punishment€which€listed€five€prior€felonyÏconvictions.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€In€our€view,€Simmons€has€at€most€established€the€loss€of€a€mere€possibility€ofÏobtaining€concurrent€sentences.€€While€this€is€certainly€a€factor€to€consider,€when€the€other€relevantÍfactors€are€properly€balanced,€a€lost€possibility€of€obtaining€concurrent€sentencing€is€not€sufficientÏprejudice€to€establish€a€speedy€trial€violation€in€this€case.ÌÌà àThe€delay€of€twenty„three€months€caused€by€negligence€was€certainly€not€appropriate,€but€itÏalso€is€not€necessarily€unreasonable€when€compared€to€other€cases.€€There€is€nothing€in€the€recordÏto€indicate€that€the€delay€was€caused€by€anything€other€than€negligence.€€While€we€do€not€condoneÏthe€Stateððs€negligent€failure€to€bring€Simmons€to€trial,€such€negligence€does€not€weigh€as€heavilyÏagainst€the€State€in€the€speedy€trial€balance,€particularly€when€the€delay€is€not€protracted.€€Therefore,Ïgiven€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€we€conclude€that€the€mere€lost€possibility€of€serving€aÏconcurrent€sentence€is€not€enough€to€tip€the€balance€in€favor€of€finding€a€speedy€trial€violation.ÌÌà àAs€we€stated€at€the€outset,€speedy€trial€claims€are€determined€by€a€balancing€test€whichÏnecessarily€requires€a€case„by„case€determination.€€The€result€in€this€case€may€well€have€beenÏdifferent€if€the€delay€were€more€protracted,€or€if€the€record€indicated€that€the€State€acted€intentionallyÏto€deprive€the€defendant€of€his€chance€of€concurrent€sentencing,€or€if€the€record€indicated€that€theÏdefendant€would€have€been€given€concurrent€sentences€but€for€the€delay.€€The€factors€relevant€to€aÏspeedy€trial€inquiry€are€interrelated€and€depend€upon€the€particular€circumstances€of€each€case.€€WeÏcannot,€nor€do€we€find€it€appropriate€to,€articulate€a€bright„line€rule.€€We€simply€hold€that€theÏdefendant€in€this€case€has€failed€to€establish€a€speedy€trial€violation.ÌÌà@ àòòò òConclusionóóó óÌà àHaving€applied€the€four„factor€balancing€test,€we€conclude€that€the€defendant€has€failed€toÏestablish€that€his€statutory€and€constitutional€right€to€a€speedy€trial€was€violated.€€Accordingly,€theÏjudgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€affirmed.€€€It€appearing€that€the€defendant€is€indigent,€costs€ofÏthis€appeal€are€taxed€to€the€State.€ÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à___________________________________à àÌà0 àà àà àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA,€III,€JUSTICE