State v. Johnson11/6/2001
The Appellant, Nicholas J. Johnson, presents for review a certified question of law. Johnson pled guilty to two counts of possession of Schedule I drugs for resale, one count of possession of Schedule IV drugs for resale, and simple possession. Johnson received an effective ten (10)-year Community Corrections sentence, and was ordered to serve one hundred and fifty (150) days, day for day, in the Williamson County Workhouse. As part of his plea, Johnson explicitly reserved, with the consent of the trial court and the State, a certified question of law challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. After review, we find that the question was not properly certified because it fails to clearly identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal Dismissed.
David G. Hayes, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Gary R. Wade, P.J., and Jerry L. Smith, J., joined.
OPINION
Factual Background
On November 8, 1999, the Appellant was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for two counts of possession of Schedule I drugs for resale, one count of possession of Schedule IV drugs for resale, simple possession, possession of drug paraphernalia, driving on a revoked license, and driving on a revoked license revoked for Driving Under the Influence . On December 22, 1999, the Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized during the search of his vehicle, challenging the constitutionality of the stop and resulting search. The motion was denied.
Thereafter, on May 15, 2000, the Appellant entered into a negotiated plea agreement under Rule 11(e) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which he pled guilty to two counts of possession of drugs, Schedule I, for resale; one count of possession of drugs, Schedule IV, for resale; and simple possession. The plea was accepted by the trial court.
As part of his plea, the Appellant, pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(i) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, explicitly reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law dispositive of the case. The respective judgment of conviction forms entered on May 15, 2000, contained the following notation within the special conditions section, "the defendant reserves right to appeal court's ruling on the motion/suppress." The "Agreed Order" which was entered on May 23, 2000, reserved the right to appeal the following certified question of law, "the validity of the search and seizure of the defendant."
ANALYSIS
The Appellant seeks review, under the provisions of Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i), of the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence. The State argues that the Appellant "failed to properly reserve a certified question of law and therefore this court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal or vacate the plea agreement."
Under Rule 37(b)(2)(i), an appeal lies from a guilty plea if the final order or judgment contains a statement of the dispositive certified question of law reserved by the Appellant, wherein the question is so clearly stated as to identify the scope and limits of the legal issues reserved. State v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834, 836 (Tenn. 1996); State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647, 650 (Tenn. 1988). No issue beyond the scope of the certified question will be considered. State v. Irwin, 962 S.W.2d. 477, 479 (Tenn. 1998) (quoting Preston, 759 S.W.2d at 650). Before a court may accept an appeal made pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(i), the following prerequisites must be satisfied:
1. The final order or judgment must contain a statement of the dispositive ques
Page 1 2 3 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|