[AccessD] Possible or No?

I use the code at the bottom to automatically come up with the next
number in a series...in this case the next available indictment number.
It works great, and I've used it in other programs...I wish I remembered
who helped me with this...I've got it in one of my books somewhere, but
I recently moved to a new office and I think it is packed
somewhere...buuuuuut...they have thrown a wrench into the works.  

It works for standard, straightforward indictment numbers, but
apparently they do a couple of different things, in different
situations. One of these is, when multiple people are indicted on a
crime (i.e. co-defendants) they would share the "main" indictment
number, but a suffix would be added for each subsequent member, after
the first entry.

For example: Tom, Dick, and Harry get indicted on racketeering charges.
Tom is entered first and is assigned the next available number, which is
2006-043. Then Dick is entered, but he doesn't get 2006-044; instead
they want to give him 2006-043-1. They then want Harry to get
2006-043-2.

There are also instances where there is a lowercase "a" assigned to
it...I believe this is something about multiple indictments. I have
found current numbers encompassing both these scenarios (2005-043a-1),
which really musses things up. And a scenario where it designates handed
down from fed court, which isn't a problem...I've just added a field for
this and append it...it doesn't really affect the number.

Whattaya think? While I was there I discovered that this number system
is not anything mandated by the state, and one woman there refuses to
follow this procedure, and instead creates a new indictment number for
each defendant. This would actually be quite a bit easier on me...I'd be
nearly done, with some minor work left. This tells me though, that maybe
there needs to be a policy change rather than building the code, if it
is possible to being with. Also, if I go through this trouble, and the
"rebel" lady still ignores their process of doing things, there really
isn't any way to force her through code...there is no way to recognize
these people, before they are designated in the program.

I'm thinking...depending on what y'all say...of giving them a call and
asking about the possibility of changing this procedurally. I probably
would have already, but it is one of those clients (department for me)
that treats you real good, and you just want to give them whatever they
want...you know they'll appreciate it.


*** CODE BELOW ***

Function NewControlNum() As String
Dim strSQL As String
Dim strNewID As String
Dim rst As Recordset

'"Right(Year(Now()),2)" & _ ...this line was in the code

strSQL = "SELECT nz(Max(Mid([tblIndictment]![IndictmentNumber],6)),0)+1
AS lngMaxID," & _
         "Year(Now())" & _
         "& '-' & [lngMaxID] AS lngNewID " & _
         "FROM tblIndictment " & _
         "WHERE
(((Left([tblIndictment]![IndictmentNumber],4))=Right(Year(Now()),4)));"
Set rst = CodeDb.OpenRecordset(strSQL)
With rst
   strNewID = rst!lngNewID
   rst.Close
   Set rst = Nothing
End With
NewControlNum = strNewID

Rem
***************************************************************************

Select Case Len(NewControlNum)
    Case 6
        NewControlNum = Left(NewControlNum, 5) & "00" &
Right(NewControlNum, 1)
    Case 7
        NewControlNum = Left(NewControlNum, 5) & "0" &
Right(NewControlNum, 2)
End Select


End Function