WPCYP +R1ϬT.0*65A'w F Oa4Q7 ̾u̮Y2f[@77 @=q<ٳ˩%(\&Իb2%jy}HC:l so=2>KB^OUYJSb\P?D4>VDSTw!Z*=oMR*=+94"yMsـSs;|"VE^9 S3P=#|5 ?eJ1EZa4"P\O7Xeʩ2p*_Nj_^D\8ER;?U:YAAU:DDU:vF=FU:GF'HU:mL;LU:NOU:PHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($   ;$4X1XXX-XX1   4    Themajorityholdsthatnonattorneyjudgesmaystillconstitutionallypresideover"civil  casesandincriminalcasesnotinvolvingpotentialincarceration."Presumably,themajority'sholdingwouldprohibitnonattorneyjudgesfrompresidingovermosttrafficviolationscodifiedintheTennesseeCodeAnnotated.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.558138("PedestriansonRoadways" ` X definedasaClassCmisdemeanor);Tenn.CodeAnn.558146,147(definingasmisdemeanorsthefailurethetostopatrailroadcrossings);Tenn.CodeAnn.558149(statingClassCmisdemeanorforfailuretostopatastopsign);Tenn.CodeAnn.558152,154(classifyingviolationsofspeedlimitlawsasmisdemeanors);Tenn.CodeAnn.558160(definingprohibitedparkingviolationsasClassCmisdemeanors). +  + e  U E      D  E Y D D D E! $ % Ӏ/ 1 օ#%3|x2 (v(2$ !  4XXXXӊXX   0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular(#$  0    ;$4X1XXX-XX1   3    Thelowercourtheldthattherighttocounselhadbeenknowinglyandvoluntarilywaived.   ;$4X1XXX-XX1   5    Thedistinctionbetweenincarcerationandnonincarcerationistenuousifthemajorityis  declaringthatnonattorneyjudgesaregenerallyincapableofconductingfairtrials.Anindividualseekingcompensationforacivilwronghasjustasmuchrighttoafairtrialasanindividualaccusedofaminortrafficviolation. ,K AZ"Arial Regular,  AZ"Arial Regular   f$4X1XXX-XX1=<Xdd=   1    TheCourtofCriminalAppeals,inaddressingtheissuenowbeforeus,notedthat"[t]he  SupremeCourtinAnglintookgreatpainstodistinguishtheapplicationofNorthtojuvenile  proceedingsandadultproceedings....ThedifferencesbetweenNorthv.Russellandthecase  atbarareglaring...."TheCourtofCriminalAppealsadoptedtheholdingoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinNorthv.Russellandheldthatthestatutewasconstitutional.   ;$4X1XXX-XX1   1    TheCourtofCriminalAppeals,inaddressingtheissuenowbeforeus,notedthat"[t]he  SupremeCourtinAnglintookgreatpainstodistinguishtheapplicationofNorthtojuvenile  proceedingsandadultproceedings....ThedifferencesbetweenNorthv.Russellandthecase  atbarareglaring...."TheCourtofCriminalAppealsadoptedtheholdingoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinNorthv.Russellandheldthatthestatutewasconstitutional.,  AZ"Arial Regular   f$4X1XXX-XX1=<Xdd=   2    Presumably,Northv.Russellwasdistinguishedbecausethe"lawoftheland"provision  mirrorsfederaldueprocess.Statev.Hale,840S.W.2d307(Tenn.1992). ,  AZ"Arial Regular 3  f$4X1XXX-XX1=<Xdd=   3    Thelowercourtheldthattherighttocounselhadbeenknowinglyandvoluntarilywaived.,  AZ"Arial Regular <  f$4X1XXX-XX1=<Xdd=   4    Themajorityholdsthatnonattorneyjudgesmaystillconstitutionallypresideover"civil  casesandincriminalcasesnotinvolvingpotentialincarceration."Presumably,themajority'sholdingwouldprohibitnonattorneyjudgesfrompresidingovermosttrafficviolationscodifiedintheTennesseeCodeAnnotated.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.558138("PedestriansonRoadways" ` X definedasaClassCmisdemeanor);Tenn.CodeAnn.558146,147(definingasmisdemeanorsthefailurethetostopatrailroadcrossings);Tenn.CodeAnn.558149(statingClassCmisdemeanorforfailuretostopatastopsign);Tenn.CodeAnn.558152,154(classifyingviolationsofspeedlimitlawsasmisdemeanors);Tenn.CodeAnn.558160(definingprohibitedparkingviolationsasClassCmisdemeanors).,  AZ"Arial Regular ]  ;$4X1XXX-XX1   2    Presumably,Northv.Russellwasdistinguishedbecausethe"lawoftheland"provision  mirrorsfederaldueprocess.Statev.Hale,840S.W.2d307(Tenn.1992). 1  f$4X1XXX-XX1=<Xdd=   5    Thedistinctionbetweenincarcerationandnonincarcerationistenuousifthemajorityis  declaringthatnonattorneyjudgesaregenerallyincapableofconductingfairtrials.Anindividualseekingcompensationforacivilwronghasjustasmuchrighttoafairtrialasanindividualaccusedofaminortrafficviolation.,  AZ"Arial Regular!"#$&C<< C ""  'XXXX'L X'X   Ad FILED'XX 'L  October26,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh  dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (3$ !  ($$   1   'dxd((' dxd,cAZ"Arial RegularP Pd   f$4*XYXXX*%XXY=ܞXdd=   1    TheCourtofCriminalAppeals,inaddressingtheissuenowbeforeus,notedthat"[t]he  SupremeCourtinAnglintookgreatpainstodistinguishtheapplicationofNorthtojuvenile  proceedingsandadultproceedings....ThedifferencesbetweenNorthv.Russellandthecase  atbarareglaring...."TheCourtofCriminalAppealsadoptedtheholdingoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinNorthv.Russellandheldthatthestatutewasconstitutional.,  AZ"Arial Regular   f$4,XYXXX,%XXY=ܞXdd=   2    Presumably,Northv.Russellwasdistinquishedbecausethe"lawoftheland"provision  mirrorsfederaldueprocess.Statev.Hale,840S.W.2d307(Tenn.1992). ,  AZ"Arial Regular 3  f$4.XYXXX.%XXY=ܞXdd=   3    Thelowercourtheldthattherighttocounselhadbeenknowinglyandvoluntarilywaived.,  AZ"Arial Regular <  f$40XYXXX0%XXY=ܞXdd=   4    Themajorityholdsthatnonattorneyjudgesmaystillconstitutionallypresideover"civil  casesandincriminalcasesnotinvolvingpotentialincarceration."Presumably,themajority'sholdingwouldprohibitnonattorneyjudgesfrompresidingovermosttrafficviolationscodifiedintheTennesseeCodeAnnotated.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.558138("PedestriansonRoadways" ` X definedasaClassCmisdemeanor);Tenn.CodeAnn.558146,147(definingasmisdemeanorsthefailurethetostopatrailroadcrossings);Tenn.CodeAnn.558149(statingClassCmisdemeanorforfailuretostopatastopsign);Tenn.CodeAnn.558152,154(classifyingviolationsofspeedlimitlawsasmisdemeanors);Tenn.CodeAnn.558160(definingprohibitedparkingviolationsasClassCmisdemeanors).,  AZ"Arial Regular 1  f$42XYXXX2%XXY=ܞXdd=   5    Thedistinctionbetweenincarcerationandnonincarcerationistenuousifthemajorityis  declaringthatnonattorneyjudgesaregenerallyincapableofconductingfairtrials.Anindividualseekingcompensationforacivilwronghasjustasmuchrighttoafairtrialasanindividualaccusedofaminortrafficviolation.,  AZ"Arial Regular   f$44XYXXX4%XXY=ܞXdd=   1    TheCourtofCriminalAppeals,inaddressingtheissuenowbeforeus,notedthat"[t]he  SupremeCourtinAnglintookgreatpainstodistinguishtheapplicationofNorthtojuvenile  proceedingsandadultproceedings....ThedifferencesbetweenNorthv.Russellandthecase  atbarareglaring...."TheCourtofCriminalAppealsadoptedtheholdingoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinNorthv.Russellandheldthatthestatutewasconstitutional.,  AZ"Arial Regular   f$46XYXXX6%XXY=ܞXdd=   2    Presumably,Northv.Russellwasdistinquishedbecausethe"lawoftheland"provision  mirrorsfederaldueprocess.Statev.Hale,840S.W.2d307(Tenn.1992). ,  AZ"Arial Regular 3  f$48XYXXX8%XXY=ܞXdd=   3    Thelowercourtheldthattherighttocounselhadbeenknowinglyandvoluntarilywaived.,  AZ"Arial Regular <  f$4:XYXXX:%XXY=ܞXdd=   4    Themajorityholdsthatnonattorneyjudgesmaystillconstitutionallypresideover"civil  casesandincriminalcasesnotinvolvingpotentialincarceration."Presumably,themajority'sholdingwouldprohibitnonattorneyjudgesfrompresidingovermosttrafficviolationscodifiedintheTennesseeCodeAnnotated.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.558138("PedestriansonRoadways" ` X definedasaClassCmisdemeanor);Tenn.CodeAnn.558146,147(definingasmisdemeanorsthefailurethetostopatrailroadcrossings);Tenn.CodeAnn.558149(statingClassCmisdemeanorforfailuretostopatastopsign);Tenn.CodeAnn.558152,154(classifyingviolationsofspeedlimitlawsasmisdemeanors);Tenn.CodeAnn.558160(definingprohibitedparkingviolationsasClassCmisdemeanors).,  AZ"Arial Regular 1  f$4<XYXXX<%XXY=ܞXdd=   5    Thedistinctionbetweenincarcerationandnonincarcerationistenuousifthemajorityis  declaringthatnonattorneyjudgesaregenerallyincapableofconductingfairtrials.Anindividualseekingcompensationforacivilwronghasjustasmuchrighttoafairtrialasanindividualaccusedofaminortrafficviolation.,  AZ"Arial Regular   f$4>XYXXX>%XXY=ܞXdd=   1    TheCourtofCriminalAppeals,inaddressingtheissuenowbeforeus,notedthat"[t]he  SupremeCourtinAnglintookgreatpainstodistinguishtheapplicationofNorthtojuvenile  proceedingsandadultproceedings....ThedifferencesbetweenNorthv.Russellandthecase  atbarareglaring...."TheCourtofCriminalAppealsadoptedtheholdingoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinNorthv.Russellandheldthatthestatutewasconstitutional.,  AZ"Arial Regular   f$4@XYXXX@%XXY=ܞXdd=   2    Presumably,Northv.Russellwasdistinguishedbecausethe"lawoftheland"provision  mirrorsfederaldueprocess.Statev.Hale,840S.W.2d307(Tenn.1992). ,  AZ"Arial Regular 3  f$4BXYXXXB%XXY=ܞXdd=   3    Thelowercourtheldthattherighttocounselhadbeenknowinglyandvoluntarilywaived.,  AZ"Arial Regular <  f$4DXYXXXD%XXY=ܞXdd=   4    Themajorityholdsthatnonattorneyjudgesmaystillconstitutionallypresideover"civil  casesandincriminalcasesnotinvolvingpotentialincarceration."Presumably,themajority'sholdingwouldprohibitnonattorneyjudgesfrompresidingovermosttrafficviolationscodifiedintheTennesseeCodeAnnotated.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.558138("PedestriansonRoadways" ` X definedasaClassCmisdemeanor);Tenn.CodeAnn.558146,147(definingasmisdemeanorsthefailurethetostopatrailroadcrossings);Tenn.CodeAnn.558149(statingClassCmisdemeanorforfailuretostopatastopsign);Tenn.CodeAnn.558152,154(classifyingviolationsofspeedlimitlawsasmisdemeanors);Tenn.CodeAnn.558160(definingprohibitedparkingviolationsasClassCmisdemeanors).,  AZ"Arial Regular 1  f$4FXYXXXF%XXY=ܞXdd=   5    Thedistinctionbetweenincarcerationandnonincarcerationistenuousifthemajorityis  declaringthatnonattorneyjudgesaregenerallyincapableofconductingfairtrials.Anindividualseekingcompensationforacivilwronghasjustasmuchrighttoafairtrialasanindividualaccusedofaminortrafficviolation.,  AZ"Arial Regular ""  HXXXXHL XHX   Ad FILEDHXX HL  October12,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular !        4Ҝ$ TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T$ $ $ $ TR[A'Legal Red3'A' Legal3'T$   7,XXdd7   ќ = 1 XXdd= ! ! = XX"*US \\ (:!&)*ӊ=         9\30\1998(3:27pm)!  :  .n^G:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\WHITEHOU\WHITEHOU.JMHnG:\IB013S2\OPINION\ACTIVE\WHITEHOU\WHITEHOU.JMH/   #XXӊ#  1 % r%<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  r% 1 1 rG%<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxP,  r1 @PPDINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@rr)DATNASHVILLE   THECITYOFWHITEHOUSE,@##/D)   @##/D) APPELLANT,@##/D) ^ V @##/D)v.@##/D)  NO.01S019711CH00259 *"  @##/D)LAWRENCERAYWHITLEY,@##/D)   DistrictAttorneyGeneralforthe@##/D)   EighteenthJudicialDistrictofthe@##/D)   StateofTennessee,JOHNCARNEY,@##/D)   DistrictAttorneyGeneralForthe@##/D)   NineteenthJudicialDistrictofthe@##/D) tl StateofTennesseeand@##/D) ZR STATEOFTENNESSEE,@##/D) @8 @##/D) APPELLEES,@##/D)   @##/D)AND@##/D)  @##/D)TAYLOR(TED)EMERY,Sherifffor@##/D)  RobertsonCounty,Tennessee;@##/D)  J.D.VANDERCOOK,Sherifffor@##/D) ph SumnerCounty,Tennessee,@##/D) VN @##/D) DEFENDANTS.@##/D) "! @MM&D DISSENTINGOPINION  $!  Irespectfullydissentfromthemajoritysopinion.Thelegislaturehassetforththerequirementsforjudges.Whilearulemandatingattorneymunicipaljudgesmaybedesirable,noprovisionofeitherthestateorfederalconstitutionrequiresattorneyjudges.MeredisagreementwithlegislativemandateisneitherasufficientreasonforthisCourttoredraftlegislationnorasufficientreasonforthisCourttoredefinetheTennesseeConstitution.Thepolicyrejectedasunconstitutionalbythemajoritywasnotonlythenormwhentheconstitutionwasdrafted,butalsohaspassedfederalconstitutionalmusterinNorthv.Russell, 5.3 427U.S.328,96S.Ct.2709,49L.Ed.2d534(1976).Accordingly,Iwouldholdthatthisareaispurelyoneoflegislativeprerogativeand  reserved  forthevotingpublic.Ifurtherdisagreewiththemajority'sholdingthatrulesdesignedto :z39 eliminatepracticeswhichdepriveaccusedoftheirfundamentalrighttofairtrialsshouldnotbeappliedretroactively.    CONSTITUTIONALITY  l d } Themajority'sholdingispremisedonthelanguageofTenn.Const.Art.1,8whichprovides:8 Thatnomanshallbetakenorimprisoned,ordisseizedofhisfreehold,libertiesorprivileges,oroutlawed,orexiled,orinanymannerdestroyedordeprivedofhislife,libertyorproperty,butbythejudgmentofhispeersorthelawoftheland.2  ! ! Themajorityholdsthatthe lawofthelandprovisionofArticle1,8nowrequiresattorneyjudges.Themajoritysrationaleforredefiningdueprocessisthat [t]herehasbeenavastincreaseinthenumberofattorneysandtremendousimprovementsintransportationandcommunication."! !  ThisCourthasconsistentlyheldthatthedueprocessclauseofthestateconstitutionis  identical  inscopeandpurposewiththatofthefederalconstitution.SeeStatev.Hale,840S.W.2d307(Tenn.1992)(holding"'thelawoftheland,' R(J!% usedinthe[Article1,8oftheTennesseeConstitution] , andthephrase , 'dueprocessoflaw,'usedin[thefederalconstitution] , aresynonymousphrasesmeaningoneandthesamething.")(citingDearbornev.State,575S.W.2d259 -&+ (Tenn.1978);Daughertyv.State,393S.W.2d739(Tenn.1965);Kittrellv. /z(- Ki t trell,409S.W.2d179(Tenn.1966)).! !  N1F*/  Themajority,!   ! however!   ! ,rejectsthewellreasonedopinionoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinNorthv.Russell,427U.S.328(1976),whichisdirectly 6/5 onpointwiththecasenowbeforeus.InNorth,theUnitedStatesSupreme ~8v17 Courtaddressedthequestionof"whetheranaccused,subjecttopossible J:B39 imprisonment,isdenieddueprocesswhentriedbeforeanonlawyerpolicecourtjudgewithalatertrialdenovoavailable."InNorth,defendantsappearingbefore  themunicipalor"policecourt":(1)hadarighttoatrialdenovo;  (2)    had  thirtydayswithinwhichtoperfectanappeal;  (3)  weregenerallychargedwithviolationsoftrafficlaws;and  (4)  facedsentencesoflessthanoneyear.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtrejectedthedefendants'argumentthat theincreasedcomplexityofsubstantiveandproceduralcriminallawrequiresthatalljudgesnowbelawyers.Id.at2712.TheCourtheldthatanadultaccusedofa  misdemeanorisnotdenieddueprocessunderthefederalconstitutionwheninitiallytriedbeforeanonattorneyjudge.TheCourtreasonedthatthedefendantwas"affordedanopportunitytobetrieddenovoinacourtpresidedoverbya H!@ lawyerjudgesinceanappealautomaticallyvacatestheconvictioninpolicecourt."Id. %    X1XXX1! ! ThemajorityreliesuponthereasoninginStateexrel.Anglinv.Mitchell, (!$ 596S.W.2d779(Tenn.1980),andthedoctrineofstaredecisisdespitethisCourtsassertioninAnglinthatNorthwasdistinguishablefromandinapplicable ,%( tothefactsinAnglin! ! .#X1XX X1B# X1XXX1   ! ! ! !   =   3  )  #  1      ׀! ! Seeid.at791(holding , " [w]  W edonotviewNorthv.Russell h.`'* asbeingapplicabletothecaseatbar.")! ! #X1XX X1#.       ! x! ! x!   ?x   5x  +x  #  2           Themajority'srelianceonStateexrel. H0@), Anglinv.Mitchell,596S.W.2d779(Tenn.1980),ismisplaced   . InAnglin,twojuvenileschargedwith H0@), thirddegreeburglaryandprofanityweretriedbeforealayjudgeandwithout (2 +. benefitofcounsel   !  ! ! !   A   7  -  #  3      .ThisCourtinAnglindistinguishedAnglinfromNorthv.  Russellonthebasisthat:  8 1. thejuvenilesinAnglindidnothaveadenovorightof   appeal;  ! ! 8 2. thejuveniles'sentenceswentintoimmediateeffect;h`  ! ! 8 3. thejuvenilesfacedfelonychargescarrying"lossoflibertyfor H@  fromseventoeightyears";and  ! ! 8 4. thejuvenileshadfivedaysinwhichtoperfectanappealas  opposedtothirtydays.  ! ! Id.at79091.ThisCourtfoundNorthtobeinapplicablebasedontheabove  factorsandheldthatjuvenilejudgesmustbelicensedlawyers"tomakeanydispositionofajuvenilethatoperatestoconfinehimordeprivehimofhisliberty."Id.at791. H!@  Inthecasenowbeforeus,themajority'sprimaryconcernistheabilityofnonattorneymunicipalandgeneralsessionjudgestopresideovermisdemeanorcases"whereincarcerationmaybeimposed."   ! X! ! X!   CX   9X  /X  #  4      ׀Inmisdemeanorcases, (!$ defendantsare:(1)entitledtodenovoappeals;(2)havethirtydayswithinwhichtoperfectadenovoappeal;  and    (3)faceamaximumsentenceofelevenmonthsandtwentyninedays.Iwould,therefore,holdthatAnglinisinapplicable h.`'* tothecasenowbeforeusforthesamereasonsthemajorityinAnglinheldthat  NorthwasinapplicabletoAnglin.Iwouldfurtherholdthatitisforthelegislature  andnotforthisCourttoredrafttherequirementsforholdingofficeasjudge.Theeffectofthemajority'sopinion,however,istoredrafttheconstitutiontoreflectthemajority'snotionsoffundamentalfairness.   !  ! ! !   E   ;   1  #  5            PROSPECTIVEAPPLICATION  H@  , Whilethemajorityfoundthataruleallowingnonattorneyjudgestopresideovermisdemeanorcasesisadenialofdueprocessandfundamentallyunfair,themajorityhasdeclinedtoapplyitsnewconstitutionalpronouncementretroactively.WereItoagreewiththemajority'sdueprocessanalysis,IwouldapplythenewruleretroactivelyunderthisCourt'sstandardenunciatedinMeadowsv.State,849S.W.2d755(Tenn.1995). h`  InMeadows,thisCourtheldthatanewconstitutionalruleshallbeapplied (#  retroactivelyinpostconvictionproceedingsifthenewrule"materiallyenhancestheintegrityandreliabilityofthefactfindingprocessofthetrial"and"raisesseriousquestionsabouttheaccuracyofguiltyverdictsinpasttrials."Id.at754. (!$ Clearly,undertheMeadowsstandard,anewruledesignedtoeliminatea *#& practiceheldtoprohibitadefendantfromobtainingafair,reliableandaccuratetrialshouldbeappliedretroactively. Municipalandgeneralsessionsjudgesaretheexclusivefindersoffactincasesbeforetheircourts.Themajorityhasheldthatpermittingnonattorney 4-0 judgestopresideovercriminalmattersraisesseriousconstitutionalquestionsconcerningtheaccuracyandreliabilityofcriminaltrials.Themajoritystatesthatit"cannotcountenanceandclassifyasconstitutionalanyprocedurewherebyitisnecessarythatacitizenstandtwotrialstogetonefairtrial."I,therefore,questionthemajority'sdecisiontorefuseretroactiveapplicationofthenewconstitutionalrulewhenthemajorityholdsthatthe"oldrule"deniesacitizentherighttoafairtrial.   <      D T$T$MT$     <      D JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE