W hi l e i t a ppea r s t hat t hes e docum ent s w er e not m ade a n e xhi bi t a t t he hea r i ng , t hey ar e at t ac hm ent s t o t he 1

m ot i on t o di s m i s s w hi ch i s c ont ai ned i n t he t ec hni ca l re cor d. The St at e ha s not ar gued t hat t he r ec or d i s i ns uf f i ci ent f or ap p el l at e review , an d w e co n cu r. See S t at e v
. B o b ad i l l a, 18 1 S.W

. 3 d 64 1 , 64 4 (T en n
. 20 0 5 ). 

### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT JAC KSON Ja nua ry 6, 200 9 S es sio n STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. CE DR IC JOHN SON
Direc t Appeal from the Cr iminal Cou rt f or Shelby Coun ty No. 08-00199 Chris Cr aft, Judge

No. W2008-01593-C CA-R 3-CD - Filed November30, 2009

A LA N E. G LE NN , J., dissenting.

I r es p ec t fu l ly dissent from the majority opinion. As I will explain, I believe that the trial
c ou rt e rr e d in dis mis sin g th e a gg ra va te d r ob be ry ind ic tme nt.
Th e iss ue in this app e a l is wh e the r the char ges of a gg ra va te d r ob be ry a ndmakin g a fa lse report are “base d upon the s ame c onduct or a rise fr om the same c riminal episode,” r equiring mandatory join d er , o r whether they “ constitute parts of a common scheme or plan,” with joinder being per missive. Tenn. R. Crim. P . 8(1)( A), (b) (1). I c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e rr e d in deter mining that the two of

fense s wer e part of the same criminal episode and that, even if this were the c a se , it

is c on trary to th e in tent

of Rul e 8 th a t th e de fe nd ant’ s p le a of g uil ty to m a kin g a

fa lse
r e p o rtb ar s h i s b e i n g p r o s e c u t e d f o r a g g r a v a t e d

r o b b e r y.
Th e re c or d in thi s matte r i s q uit e thi n; th e hear ing on the de fe nd a nt’ s mo tio n to dis mis s consists solely of colloquy among the trial court and counse l without any testi mony being pre sented. Thus, the record for t he trial court’s review, as well as that of this court, consists solely of severa l documents, the authenticity of which a ppare ntly is not being questioned. 1

I n it ia ll y , In o te th a t t

h e a f f id a v it o f c o mp la in t m a k e s n o me n ti o no f a v e h ic le ’ s b e in g used in the April 4, 2007, 1 1 : 2 5 p
. m
. aggra vated r obbery

of Di’A E . Watkins, and the aff idavit of
c omp la int fo r t he makin g a

fa lse re po rt state s on ly that the ve hic le , wh ic h wa s the su bje c t of the fa lse repor t, was “be lieved to ha

ve been just used in a robber y .” Thus, while the rec ord on appea l does not tie toge ther these offe nses, the State has not disputed that such a tie exis ted. Acc ording ly , the sufficie ncy

of the e vidence prese nted to the trial cour t is not an issue on appea l.A l t hough t he r ec or d i s not ent i r el y cl ea r , i t a ppea r s , f r om t he s t at em ent of

c ouns el dur i ng t he hea r i ng, t hat t he 2 d efe n d an t rem ain ed i n jail , p u rsu an t to th e ag g rav ated ro b b ery ch arg e, after the i n i t i al d i sm i ssal of th e m ak i n g a fa l se r eport char ge. -2- First, I do not believe that Rule 8 contemplates tha t a def endant, ha ving pled guilty to a marginally re lated lesser

offe nse, must then be prote cted f rom the vexation of be ing prosecute d for
a serious felony. To apply Rule 8 in such a fashion is , i n m y m i n d , u tilizing a cure for whic h no
c or re sp on din g d ise a se e xis ts. The Advisory

Commi ssion Com ments expl ain that the intent of Rule 8 (a ) i s t o preve nt “a deliberate and willful ‘saving ba ck’ of known cha

rg es for future pr osecution”: This rule is desig ned to enc ourag e the disposition in a si ng le t rial of multiple offe nses ari sin g fr om t

he same c on du c t and

fr om t he same c ri min a l epi so de, and sh ou ld there fore promote ef

ficienc y and ec onomy
. . . . The Co mm is s io n w is h e s to ma k e c le ar th a t s e c ti o n ( a ) is me an t to s top the prac tice by

some prosec uting a

ttorney s of “saving back” one or more c harg es ar ising from the same conduc t or from the same c riminal episode. Such other char g es ar e barr ed fr om f

uture prosec ution if known to the appropr iate prose cuting officia l at the time that the other prose cution is commence d, but deliberately not p re sented to a g rand jury . “Appr opriate pr osecutingofficia l” shall be so construe d as to ac hieve the purpose of

this rule, which is the pre vention of a deliberate and willful “saving ba ck” of known c harg es for

future pr osecution. The r efusa l of the g rand jury to act upon s u c h o th e r c h ar g e s w o u ld n o t b e a v io lati o n o f th is jo in d e r r u le s o a s to b ar f

uture prosec ution of such cha

rg es.
The recor d

is c le ar th a t t h e r e w a s n o “ s a v in g b a c k ” o f th e a g g r a v a te d

r o b b e r y c h ar g e. Ac c or din g to Exhi bit D to the de fe nd ant’ s mot ion , the a g g ra vate d ro bb e ry c a se wa s b ound ov e r t o the g rand jury

on May 22, 2007, and the bond wa s set at $100,000. Acc ording to Ex hibit C , the de fe nd ant w a s in

g e ne ra l ses si on s cou

rt the fo llo wi ngda

y , M ay 23 , 2 00 7, on

the makin g a

fa lse
re po rt c ha rg e , wh ic h wa s dis mis se d fo r la c k of pr os e c uti on
. Thus , the c a se s we re se pa ra te d, bu t it
r e m a i n e d o b v i o u s t o t h e d e f

e n d an tt h a th e s t i l l w a s c h ar g e d w i t h t h e a g g r a v a t e d

r o b b e r y. 2
The c ommentary

to standard 13-1.2 of t he American B ar A ssociation Standards for Criminal J ustice explains that “[a] critica l cha ra ct eristi c of sing le episode of fense s, particular ly

in case s inv olv ingoth e rw ise un re late d of fe ns e s o r o ff

e nd e rs , is the fa c t th a t pr oo f o f o ne of fe ns e ne c e ssa

ri ly involves proof of the others.” A BAStandards for Criminal J ustice 13-1.2, Commentary (2d ed. 1980 & Supp. 1986) ( footnote omitted).

I t is clear that the defe ndant could have been tried for either ag g ravated robber y or making a fa lse repor

t without proof of the other char g e. Thus, under this standard, the two crimes did not constitute a “sing le episode.”-3-

In State v. Fore, 62 P.3d 400, 402 (Or. Ct. App. 2003), the def endant wa s discovere d missing from a Ma

rion County inmate road crew on November 19, 1999 at 9:47 a.m. At 10:08 a.m., three blo c ks a way, he wa s se e n d ri vin g a way in a c le a nin g c omp a ny van , w hic h h e app are ntl y h a d ju st stolen. At 7:38 p.m., he was spot ted in Josephine County with the van, wa s arr ested, a nd tried and
c on vic te d in that c ou nty of un a uth or iz e d u se of a mot or ve hic le

. Sub se qu e ntl y, he wa s c ha rg e d in Marion County with escape in the second degre e and unauthorize d use of a motor vehicle. I d. He
arg ue d tha t the Ma

ri on Cou nty pr os e c uti on fo r the se tw o off e ns e s wa s bar

re d by his c on vic tio n in Jo se ph ine Cou nty of

un a uth or iz e d u se of

a mot or ve hic le ; and the tr ia l cou rt a gr e e d. Id

. Th e Sta te appea led only the dismissal of the esca pe cha rge, arguing, in pa

rt, that the def

endant’ s esca

pe and subsequent unauthor ized use of a motor ve hicle we re not pa rt of the sa me criminal episode.
The Or egon Court of Appe als noted the statute, r elied upon by the tria l court, protec ting a defe ndant from f

ormer je opardy:
“N o p e r s o n s h a ll b e s e p ar a te ly p r o s e c u te d f o r tw o o r mo r e o f

f e n s e s based upon the same criminal episode, if the sever al offe nses are rea sonably known to the appro p r iate p r o s e c u to r a t th e ti me o f c o mm e n c e me n t o f th e f ir s t p r o s e c u tion a nd establish proper

venue in a

single court.” Id. (quoting Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 131.515( 2)).
The cou rt a g r e e d th a t th e d e f e n d a n t’ s p le a

o f g u il ty to th e u n a u th o r iz e d u s e o f a motor vehicle, use d to effe ct his esca pe, did not bar his then be ing pr osecute d for the esca pe, beca use they
wer e not part of the same c riminal episode:
Her e, def endant’ s esca

pe was complete as soon as he ran away from the road cre w, a ndc e rt a inl y n o late r tha n 9 :47 a .m. , whe n his d e pa rtur e wa s r e po rt e d. A c omp le te acc ount of the esc ape char ge can be made by rela ting only that defe ndant ra n awa y fr o m a ro ad cre w and without mentioning any details of e vents that led to the unauthorize d use of a

vehicle c harge

. Id. at 404.
As in Fore, t he defenda nt in this matter had completed the a ggravated robbe ry whe n, twelve ho ur s late r a nda t a

dif fe re nt l oc a tio n, he ma de a fa lse re po rt

to the po lic e
. Al so , a s wa s tr ue wi th the def endant in Fore, the char ges aga inst thi s defe ndant could have been pr esente d separ ately.
These a uthorities make cle ar to me tha t the trial court e rre d in dismi ssing the indictment for aggra vated r obbery. The separa tion of t he two offe nses by hours and distance, in addition to the fac t that they could be pr osecute d separ ately without proof a s to the d ef en d an t ’s ac tions which had resulted in the r emaining cha rge, makes cle ar tha t they we re not a “single c riminal episode.” Further, the c lear

intent of R ule 8 is to protect a de fenda nt from piece meal prose cutions, resulting from the holding bac k of additional cha rges a nd not to rewa

rd a de fenda nt alert to the nua nces of-4-

mandatory joinder rules. For these re asons, I would re verse the orde r of the trial court a nd rema nd this matter for r einstatement of the indictment for aggr avate d robbery.

___________________________________ ALAN E. G LENN, JUD GE