### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A pr il 24, 200 7
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TERESA H ERMAN
Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2004-B-1223 Seth Norm an, Jud ge

No. M2006- 01384-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Novem ber 5, 2007

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , Dissenting O pinion

I be lie ve that the tr ia l c ourt a c te d we ll wi thi n its a uth or ity in g ra

nti ng Ap pe lle e c re dit

a g a ins t the full forty -eig ht hours of i ncar cer ation order ed as a result of her conviction first offe nse DUI

. I would not gr ant the State’s r equest to treat this appeal as a co m m o n l aw writ of ce rtiorar i and I
wo uld dis mis s th e a

pp e a l.

As no te d b y the ma

jor ity a nd c on c e de d by the Sta te , the re is no a pp e a l pr ov ide d to the Sta te under Te nnessee Rules of Ap p el l an t Procedur e 3(c ) g overning appea ls of rig ht. Howeve r, under
c e rt a in c ir c umst ances a w ri t of c e rt ior a ri may

be g ra nte d to a pa rt y wh e re no a

pp e a l of ri g ht i s a utho ri z e d. Th e c omm on

law w ri t of

c e rt ior a ri , a s c od if

ie d a t T .C. A. § 2 7- 8- 10 1, is l imi te d in its
a pp lic a tio n a

nd may no t be us e d to “ inq

uir e int o the c or

re c tne ss of a jud g me nt iss ue d by a c ourt wi th jurisdiction.” Mo od

yv . S tat e , 1 6 0 S

. W

. 3 d

5 1 2 , 5 1 5 (T en n

. C ri m

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 5 ) ( qu o t i n g State v. Adler , 92 S.W .3d 397, 401 (Tenn. 2002) . A writ of c ertiora ri is proper w hen a tr ial court is acting “without leg al authority ” and the re is no other “plain, spee dy

or ade quate r emedy .” Id

. ( q u o t i n g Adler , 92 S.W .3d at 401). Thus, the viability of the instant appe al re solves itself into the question of whether the trial cour

t had the leg al authority to give Appellee cre dit ag ainst h er fo rty -eig ht hours of inc a rc e ratio n f

or tim e sp e nt i n in

patie nt e va luatio n f

or c omp e te nc y

to s tand tr ia l.
The State a

rg ues that the trial court was without leg al authority to give Appellee cre dit for tim e se rv e d be c a

us e T. C.A

. § 55 -1 0- 40 3 r e qu ir e s a mand a tor

y min imu m pe ri od

in t he wo rk ho us e or jail and doe s not provide for c redit for time spent in a treatment fac ility . Appellee argues that her time was not spent in a tre atment fa cility , as conte mplated in T.C.A. § 55-10-403, but rat her in a mental hea lth facility

for e valuation as orde red by the trial court under T.C.A. § 33-7-301( a). A s noted by the m ajority , Appellee is corr ect that her tim e in a mental health fac ility was for evaluation of c omp e te nc y

or de re d b y

the tr ia l c ourt

.-2- Sentencing Credits for T.C.A. § 55-10- 403(a)

T. C.A . § 55 -1 0- 40 3 s ta te s in pe rt ine nt p a rt :

Any pe rs on or pe rs on s vio la tin g the pr ov isi on s of §§ 55 -1 0- 40 1 – 55 -1 0- 40 4 s ha ll, up on c on vic tio n th e re of

, f or the fi rs t of

fe ns e be fi ne d n ot l e ss t

ha n th re e hund

re d f if ty dollars ($350) nor

more than one thousand five hundr ed dollars ( $1,500), and suc h pe rs on or pe rs on s shall be confined in the county jail or w orkhouse for not less than fo rt y -e ig ht (4 8) ho ur s no r mor e tha n e le ve n (1 1) mon ths a nd tw e nty -n ine (2 9) da y s; a nd the c ourt sh a ll pr oh ibi t su c h c on vic te d p e rs on fr om d ri vin g a ve hic le in t

he state of Tenne ssee f

or a pe riod of time of one (1) y ear

.
T.C.A. §55-10-403( a)( 1) (e mphasis added)

. This Court has previously held that a de fenda

nt who is convicted of D UI . under T.C.A. § 55- 10-403(a )(1) is entitled to pretrial jail cre dits under T.C.A. § 40-23-101( c). Sta te v . Ka in , 24 S.W .3d 816, 82 0 (T en n

. C ri m. App. 2000), perm. app. de nied , (Tenn. 2000) . I n Kain, the State ra ised an
a rgume nt r e mark a

bly sim ila r t o th e on e ra ise d in

the c a se a t ba

r a nd it w a s r e je c te d b y thi s Co ur t.
Th e tr ia l c ourt or de re d that Ap pe lle e un de rg o inp a tie nt ps y c hiatr ic e va luatio n a t th e Mid dle Tenne ssee M e n ta l H e a lt

h I n s ti tu te u nder T.C.A. § 33- 7-301(a ). She spent appr ox imately three wee ks at the hospital. T.C.A. § 33-7-102 pr ovides: “Wheneve r a pe rs o n is hospitaliz ed or r ece ives evalu a ti o n o r tr e a tm e n t s e r v ic e s u n d e r th is c h a

p te r in c o n n e c ti o n w it

h a c r im in a l c h a rg e or conviction, wher everincar cer ated, the pe rson shall rec eive c redit towar d the satisfac tion of the sentenc e for

the time spent in custody of the c ommissi oner.” T.C.A. § 33-7-102( a).

Th e purp os e s o f bo th the pr e tr ia l ja il c re dit statut e a nd the se nte nc e c re dit s f

or tim e sp e nt i n inpatient evaluation is obvi ous, it is s o people with ce rt ain di sabilities are not punished more
sever ely than those who d o n ot share those disabiliti es. I n the ca se of pr etrial jail cr edits that disability is a financ ial inability to ma ke a bond. State v. Silva , 6 80 S.W. 2d 48 5, 48 6 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ); State v. Abe rnathy , 649 S.W .2d 285, 286 (Tenn. Crim. Ap p . 1983). I n the ca se of persons who must be evaluated for m ental competency to stand trial, the disability is the defe ndant’s mental condition. I t must be reme mbere d that persons court order ed to underg o inpatient evaluation
are not free to ignor e the or der; they are held by

the Commiss ioner of Me ntal Hea lth and are not free to le a v e th e in s ti tuti o n w h e r e th e e v a lu a ti o n is ta k in g p la c e

. T h e r e f

o r e , if n o t g iv e n s e n te n cing
cre dits ag ainst an ac tual incar cer ative sente nce, de fenda nts who exh i b i t sy

mptoms of a mental dis e a se or de fe c t and mus t be ev a luate d on an inp a tie nt ba sis a re punis he d mor e ha rs hly tha n th os e who do not require such an e valuation.-3-

Neither T.C.A. § 33-7-102 or T.C.A. § 55-10-403, nor any other statute pr ohibits sentencing
cre dits ag ainst a sentenc e o f inca rce ration for

time held in a mental hea lth facility for inpatient evaluation to deter

mine competenc y

to stand trial. I f, as the ma jority conclude s, such a pr ohibition is intended by

the state leg islature then that body should say

so. Until it does I

believe the unambig uous lang uag e of T.C.A. § 33-7-102 gra nted the trial judg e the leg al authority to rule in the
mann e r h e did . T he re fo re , I wo uld de ny c e rt ior a ri re vie w a

nd dis mis s th e a

pp e a l.

For these re asons I

dissent.

___________________________________

J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE