Hirsch – State v Ferrante and State v McCloud

Hirsch writes:

Pro se Accused Petitioner, Arthur Hirsch, hereby supplements accused’s VERIFIED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION with additional case law below in support thereof. Accused would have the Court notice that the record contains no document purporting to be an “arrest warrant” issued in this case, the state does not contends that one was executed or issued, and without a lawful charging instrument the indictment is invalid and the Court must dismiss.

STATE v. FERRANTE, 269 S.W.3d 908, 915

Hirsch is confused about how a citation differs from an arrest warrant and how the cases proceed.

He also cites State v. McCloud, 310 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009) but fails to observe that:

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-2-104 provides that a prosecution is commenced by the following:

finding an indictment or presentment, the issuing of a warrant, binding over the offender, by the filing of an information as provided for in chapter 3 of this title, or by making an appearance in person or through counsel in general sessions or any municipal court for the purpose of continuing the matter or any other appearance in either court for any purpose involving the offense.

Note that a citation does not being a prosecution but that an indictment returned by the Grand Jury is. Prosecution was initiated within the 12 months time. And while the citation itself does not initiate prosecution, the filing of the indictment did.