ÿWPC~ …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — w@¦ 0Jæ 0T0 0^„ 0hâ 0rJ 0|¼ 0†8 0¾ 1uN 0dÃU>'U*eB)DC¸ AMû°Hv~ø BvvÓ“ D3f 0@™ AOÙÆ( 0Dî D/2 Ba˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓR¦"3|xµ Ÿ D¡D¢e£¤E¥¦D§Ó€³2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d 7Border 1dd€-!Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¦Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€XÔÌÌò òMayÏ19,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€FXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€ÔÞ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóó̜ـ€ÙßR€"#!A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›à@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLE€óóÌà@ àJANUARY€1997€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€03C01„9607„CC„00264€Ìà àAppellant,à àà àà à*à àSULLIVAN€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Frank€L.€Slaughter,€JudgeÌMARSHA€COLLEEN€BEELER,à à*à à(State€Appeal)Ìà àAppellee.à àà àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellee:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellant:óóÌÓÓBurkett€C.€McInturff,€Attorney€à àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ131€Broad€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€583ÌBlountville,€TN€€37662à àà àà àSandy€R.€CopousÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àEdward€E.€Wilson€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àBlountville,€TN€€37617Ìà àà àà àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDED€ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThis€is€an€appeal€of€right€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€from€an€orderÏrestoring€Marsha€Colleen€Beeler's€driving€privileges.€€The€defendant€had€beenÏpreviously€declared€a€habitual€motor€vehicle€offender.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÏ55„10„601€to€„617.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€presented€for€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€prematurelyÏreinstated€driving€privileges€for€a€defendant€who€had€been€declared€a€habitualÏmotor€vehicle€offender.€€We€believe€that€reinstatement€on€the€date€of€the€order€wasÏprohibited€by€statute.€€Thus,€the€judgment€is€reversed€and€the€cause€remanded€toÏthe€trial€court.€ÌÌà àà àOn€February€22,€1993,€a€default€judgment€was€entered€declaring€theÏdefendant€to€be€a€habitual€motor€vehicle€offender.€€The€judgment€did€not€includeÏthe€certificate€of€service€upon€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€Rule€58,€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€€FiveÏdays€later,€an€officer€unsuccessfully€attempted€to€serve€a€copy€on€the€defendant.€ÏOn€April€16,€1993,€another€officer€served€the€defendant's€mother,€Glenda€Beeler,Ïwith€a€copy€of€the€default€judgment;€the€return€of€service€indicated€that€Ms.€BeelerÏhad€agreed€to€provide€the€copy€to€the€defendant.€€There€is€no€indication€she€did€so.€ÏOn€February€16,€1994,€the€original€judgment€was€refiled,€this€time€containing€theÍrequired€certification.ÌÌà àà àIn€May€of€1995,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€several€offenses.€€InÏthe€first€indictment,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€violation€of€the€order,€drivingÏon€a€revoked€license,€and€driving€on€a€revoked€license€(fifth€offense).€€In€theÏsecond€indictment,€the€defendant€was€charged€with€the€same€three€offenses.€€TheÏthird€and€fourth€indictments€charged€additional€violations€of€the€habitual€trafficÏoffender€order;€in€the€latter€indictment,€the€defendant€was€also€charged€withÏaggravated€perjury€and€fabricating€evidence€when€she€claimed€that€she€had€beenÏreleased€from€class€on€that€date€to€participate€in€a€field€trip.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€sought€a€dismissal€claiming€that€the€state€did€not€haveÏa€valid€judgment€due€to€the€lack€of€a€certificate€of€service.€€The€trial€court€dismissedÏall€four€indictments€on€the€basis€that€the€defendant€had€not€been€personally€servedÏwith€a€copy€of€the€default€judgment.€€The€state€failed€to€timely€appeal€the€order€ofÏdismissal.€€Thus,€the€action€is€final.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€€ÌÌà àà àOn€May€6,€1996,€the€defendant€filed€a€petition€for€the€restoration€of€herÏdriving€privileges.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€petition,€concluding€that€while€theÏFebruary€22,€1993,€default€judgment€had€no€validity€due€to€its€lack€of€certification,Íthe€three„year€statutory€waiting€period€had€nonetheless€begun€to€run€on€that€date.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„615(b).€€Because€three€years€had€passed€since€theÏFebruary€22,€1993,€€judgment,€the€trial€court€restored€driving€privileges.€€ÌÌ€à àà àInitially,€this€court€should€point€out€that€actions€under€the€MotorÏVehicle€Offenders€Act€are€civil€in€nature.€€òòBankston€v.€Stateóó,€815€S.W.2d€213,€216Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€In€òòBankstonóó,€this€court€ruled€that€one€should€mount€anyÏattack€upon€the€habitual€offender€judgment€through€Rule€60€of€the€TennesseeÏRules€of€Civil€Procedure:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àOn€motion€and€upon€such€terms€as€are€just,€the€courtÏmay€relieve€a€party€or€the€party's€legal€representativeÏfrom€a€final€judgment,€order€or€proceeding€for€theÏfollowing€reasons:€€(1)€mistake,€inadvertence,€surprise€orÏexcusable€neglect;€(2)€fraud€(whether€heretoforeÏdenominated€intrinsic€or€extrinsic),€misrepresentation,€orÏother€misconduct€of€an€adverse€party;€(3)€the€judgmentÏis€void;€(4)€the€judgment€has€been€satisfied,€released,€orÏdischarged,€or€a€prior€judgment€upon€which€it€is€basedÏhas€been€reversed€or€otherwise€vacated,€or€it€is€noÏlonger€equitable€that€a€judgment€should€haveÏprospective€application;€or€(5)€any€other€reasonÏjustifying€relief€from€the€operation€of€the€judgment.€€ÌÌÓÓTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.€€The€motion€may€be€made€"within€a€reasonable€time...."€€òòId.óó€ÏThe€defendant€did€not,€of€course,€make€such€an€attack€upon€the€judgment€enteredÏin€this€case.€€€€ÌÌà àà àTypically,€any€civil€judgment€becomes€effective€when€marked€filed€forÏentry€by€the€clerk€of€the€trial€court€under€any€one€of€the€three€following€conditions:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(1)€à àthe€signatures€of€the€judge€and€all€parties€orÏcounsel,€or€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(2)à àthe€signatures€of€the€judge€and€one€party€orÏcounsel€òòwith€a€certificate€of€counsel€that€a€copy€of€theÏproposed€order€has€been€served€on€all€other€parties€orÏcounsel,€oróó€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(3)à àthe€signature€of€the€judge€and€a€certificate€of€theÏclerk€òòthat€a€copy€has€been€served€on€all€other€parties€orÏcounselóó.€ÌÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€58€(emphasis€added).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThe€primary€purpose€of€the€rule,€of€course,€is€to€insure€that€all€partiesÏto€a€suit€are€placed€on€notice€of€the€results.€€If€any€one€of€the€three€segments€ofÏRule€58€has€been€met,€the€filing€of€the€judgment€with€the€clerk€is€the€effective€dateÏof€the€judgment.€€òòSeeóó€òòGrantham€v.€Tennessee€State€Bd.€of€Equalizationóó,€794ÏS.W.2d€751,€752€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€ÌÌà àà àIn€our€view,€the€date€of€the€final€judgment€is€February€16,€1994,€theÏday€the€state€filed€the€judgment€with€the€requisite€signatures€and€œqualifications,Íthus›€complying€with€Rule€58.€€In€òòState€v.€Don€D.€Williamsóó,€No.€03C01„9404„CR„00148€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Jan.€13,€1995),€this€court€ruled€that€the€effectÏof€noncompliance€with€Rule€58€was€to€suspend€the€operation€of€the€judgment€untilÏthe€date€of€compliance.€€Hence€the€judgment€declaring€Williams€to€be€a€habitualÏoffender€under€the€act€became€effective€upon€compliance€with€Rule€58.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€relies€upon€òòState€v.€Donnie€M.€Jacksóó,€No.€03C01„9108„CR„00256€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Knoxville,€Apr.€28,€1992),€wherein€this€courtÏreversed€a€conviction€for€violation€of€the€defendant's€habitual€motor€vehicleÏoffender€status.€€In€òòJacksóó,€the€defendant€had€filed€a€motion€to€set€aside€the€defaultÏjudgment€under€Rule€60€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure€due€to€a€failureÏon€the€part€of€the€state€to€comply€with€Rule€58.02€of€the€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure.€€InÏthat€case,€the€state€did€not€show€that€there€had€been€a€certification€by€the€courtÏclerk€or€counsel€for€the€state€indicating€that€a€copy€of€the€judgment€had€beenÏserved€on€the€defendant.€€As€a€result€of€the€omission,€the€judgment€was€deemedÏineffective;€thus,€the€defendant€could€not€be€found€criminally€responsible€forÏviolating€the€terms€of€the€judgment.€€The€difference€in€this€case,€of€course,€was€thatÏhere€the€state€had€complied€with€the€terms€of€Rule€58€by€the€re„entry€of€the€order€inÏproper€form€on€February€16,€1994.€€So€the€habitual€offender€order€was€in€effect€atÏall€times€thereafter.€€ÌÌà àà àAs€applied€to€these€circumstances,€the€refiling€of€the€judgment€onÏFebruary€16,€1994,€placed€the€defendant€on€habitual€offender€status.€€By€the€termsÏof€the€statute,€the€defendant€could€not€apply€for€a€license€for€three€years€thereafter.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„615(b).€€On€May€6,€1996,€the€defendant€did€not€qualify€forÏreinstatement€of€driving€privileges.€€The€judgment€must,€therefore,€be€reversed.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€also€asks€that€this€court€declare€that€the€trial€court€erred€inÏthe€dismissal€of€the€four€indictments€on€September€12,€1995.€€While€there€mayÏhave€been€error€in€that€case,€there€was€no€appeal€by€the€state.€€Their€time€to€do€soÏhas€expired.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a).€€The€order€of€dismissal€has€become€final.€ÏIn€consequence,€this€court€may€not€address€the€issue.€€€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€is€reversed€on€the€basis€that€the€defendant€Ïwas€not€entitled€to€be€granted€driving€privileges.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge€ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€