Michael J. Fryar appeals a certified question of law regarding his guilty plea to aggravated burglary in the Sumner County Criminal Court. The appeal focuses on whether the prosecution of the aggravated burglary charge was barred by the statute of limitations. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that the prosecution was initiated before the expiration of the statute of limitations.
Fryar was initially charged with aggravated burglary and theft on August 9, 2002, but was not arrested until July 2011. A grand jury indicted him in September 2011. Fryar argued for dismissal based on the statute of limitations, claiming the misdemeanor theft charges were time-barred since the arrest warrants were not executed within the five-year limit as stipulated in T.C.A. § 40-6-206. He also contended that the aggravated burglary charge was void due to the court clerk's inability to determine probable cause when signing the warrant.
During a hearing, Deputy Clerk Sindy Jones Moore testified about her training and the process for issuing warrants. Although she acknowledged not knowing the legal definition of probable cause, she believed the information in the warrant was sufficient. The trial court ultimately dismissed the misdemeanor theft charges due to the expiration of the warrant but upheld the aggravated burglary charge, concluding that it was timely prosecuted.
The court upheld the charge of aggravated burglary against Ms. Moore, finding her sufficiently trained to make a probable cause determination. On April 5, 2012, Ms. Moore pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, and on April 27, 2012, the trial court issued an order for a conditional plea, reserving a certified question for appellate review regarding the statute of limitations applicable to count two of the indictment. The prosecution for aggravated burglary, a Class C felony, must begin within four years of the offense date, with the statute of limitations set forth in T.C.A. 40-20-101(b)(3). An arrest warrant was issued for Ms. Moore on August 9, 2002, related to an alleged offense on April 3, 2002. Ms. Moore argued that the warrant was void because the court clerk lacked the qualifications for a probable cause determination. However, the court clarified that under Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, a warrant can only be issued by a magistrate or authorized clerk capable of making such determinations. The case referenced State v. Ferrante, which involved a similar issue where the clerk lacked the necessary legal training. In contrast, Ms. Moore, despite not having formal legal training, demonstrated a practical understanding of probable cause through her experience. The court concluded that Ms. Moore was a neutral and detached individual capable of making a valid probable cause determination, validating the arrest warrant and affirming the trial court's judgment.
