State of Tennessee v. John Ruff - Concurring and Dissenting

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. John Ruff - Concurring and Dissenting

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedJanuary 19, 2001

DocketW1999-01536-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. John Ruff - Concurring and Dissenting (State of Tennessee v. John Ruff - Concurring and Dissenting) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Tennessee v. John Ruff - Concurring and Dissenting, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 8, 2000 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN RUFF

Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 96-09407, 08

No. W1999-01536-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 19, 2001

James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., concurring and dissenting.

I concur with the majority’s rationale that led to the conclusion that the charges were properly dismissed below without prejudice. However, I also agree with the majority’s statements about the unavailability of a Rule 3 appeal in this case. Because no appeal as a matter of right is availed to the defendant under Rule 3, I would conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s issue with respect to the dismissal of charges without prejudice. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). Although the practical result is the same in that the action of the trial court is not being reversed, I would dismiss the appeal.

The majority has undertaken to consider the substantive issue, and had we the jurisdiction to consider it, I would concur in Judge Welles’s excellent analysis.

____________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 8, 2000 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN RUFF

Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 96-09407, 08

No. W1999-01536-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 19, 2001

James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., concurring and dissenting.

I concur with the majority’s rationale that led to the conclusion that the charges were properly dismissed below without prejudice. However, I also agree with the majority’s statements about the unavailability of a Rule 3 appeal in this case. Because no appeal as a matter of right is availed to the defendant under Rule 3, I would conclude that this court is without jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s issue with respect to the dismissal of charges without prejudice. See Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b). Although the practical result is the same in that the action of the trial court is not being reversed, I would dismiss the appeal.

The majority has undertaken to consider the substantive issue, and had we the jurisdiction to consider it, I would concur in Judge Welles’s excellent analysis.

____________________________________ JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. John Ruff - Concurring and Dissenting, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-john-ruff-concurring-and-diss-tenncrimapp-2001.