 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Conner12/5/2005
e v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn. 1996)]. Moreover, we agree with the State that a substantial compliance standard would be very difficult to apply in a consistent and uniform manner, and therefore would conflict with the very purpose of Preston. We therefore reject the defendant's argument that substantial compliance with the requirements set forth in Preston is all that is necessary in order to appeal a certified question of law.
Although required by Rule 37(b)(2)(i)(C)-(D), the judgment in this case neither reflected that the certified question was expressly reserved with the consent of the State and the trial court nor that the defendant, the State, and the trial court were of the opinion that the question was dispositive of the case. Rule 37(b)(2)(iv), which does not require the judgment to reflect the State's consent to appeal or the State's opinion that the question is dispositive of the case, does not apply in this case because the defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37, Committee Cmt. to 1984 Amendment (explaining that " he amendment to section (b) allows the defendant to appeal a certified question of law without consent of the district attorney. This provision would only apply where there was no plea agreement and the defendant pled to the charge with the court imposing sentence.").
In Armstrong, 126 S.W.3d at 912, our supreme court concluded that a trial's court's remedial action to correct deficiencies in an original judgment was sufficient to satisfy the Preston requirements when the trial court's corrective order was entered before the notice of appeal was filed, and, thus, while the trial court maintained jurisdiction over the case. In this case, there is nothing in the record to reflect that any corrective order, satisfying the Preston requirements, was entered before the notice of appeal was filed. Under such circumstances, we must conclude that the defendant did not meet the stringent requirements for properly certifying a question of law for appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
CONCLUSION
We conclude that the defendant has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements for certifying a question of law for appeal pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|