WPCa  ;ibu/X%ZAqװԥf EƓev8дЄ̗4e-e<(L-~;!Bu n/7Y!Eco=nyEPôS5+ Pq%{([͂|8"/3cY*@`tj:'R˔DCgڕu[dȨ%j+wu̙@qXmW5l֥_Q >),l 0b6Kde.+Ui{/_2٭cerխԬƂ?Ul'B5YWQf";BoG4j%-Lg6p*Wءr-g?u?CũlS:ԟ'ؕTjbԽwsz,# hUNs % 0(U:w@)4i}U: 0O 0DU: AQU & U: -            0D3 D3w w w w B  0D 0D D/ BD HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($,  AZ"Arial Regular >eUEEEӀV&3|x,|AZ"Arial Regular w  $4X   1    m3XXm3Thedefendantwasalsochargedandconvictedofseveralotherdrivingrelatedoffenses;the `  onlyconvictiononappeal,however,isthatforviolatingthehabitualtrafficorderonJanuary30,1997.(8(2$ !  4X   0  (#$  0  +K AZ"Arial Regular'(!)*C<< C  ("  Xl-XXX9k XXl-   Ad FILEDXl-X 9k   March24,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. XXl-AppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular ##Xd#(3$ !  &&&&'dxd dLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ++' dxdP Pd !  ` 4XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXtXXX Xl-XXXt PX Xl-r"<,(j 8` `@E f ` ttx$X` rߛ@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @*ATKNOXVILLE P  @&OCTOBER1998SESSIONSTATEOFTENNESSEE,  * D C.C.A.#03C019711CR00506   Ѐ  Appellee,    * D SullivanCounty   ̢VS.   <     * D Hon.R.JerryBeck,Judge   MICHAELSAMUELEIDSON,  * D (HabitualMotorVehicleOffender)      Appellant.    *  ForAppellant: <      D ForAppellee: `  GaleK.Flanary <      D JohnKnoxWalkup P AssistantPublicDefender   D AttorneyGeneral&Reporter H ТP.O.Box839Blountville,TN37617    ࢣ D ࢣEllenH.Pollack !8    <      D AssistantAttorneyGeneral   <      D 425FifthAvenueNorth   <      D CordellHullBuilding   $     <      D Nashville,TN37243   x%    <      D    <      D GregA.Newman   <      D AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral   <      D P.O.Box526   <      D Blountville,TN37617   <      D ̢OPINIONFILED:_____________________# P# PAFFIRMED̜7XXdXXd7  #Xd#  GARYR.WADE,PRESIDINGJUDGE# P # P# Xl-X P# :h13 7XXdXXd7  7RXXdd7  7]XXdXXd7  #XtXX Xl- #   OPINION F     Thedefendant,MichaelEidson,pledguiltytoviolatinganorder &  declaringhimtobeanhabitualtrafficoffender,reservingthefollowingcertifiedquestionoflaw:whetherthe1993orderdeclaringthedefendanttobeanhabitualtrafficoffenderisvoidbecausetheclerk'sofficefailedtomarktheorder"filed"or"filedforentry."SeeTenn.R.Civ.P.58.Thetrialcourtimposedatwoyear F  sentencetobeservedinTDOC.Weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.  OnOctober8,1993,CriminalCourtJudgeE.P.Calhounsignedanorderdeclaringthedefendanttobeanhabitualtrafficoffender.Theorderbarredthedefendantfromdrivingamotorvehicleuntilthedefendant'sdrivingprivilegeshadbeenreinstated.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.5510615.Thedefendant,whowas  notrepresentedbycounsel,andtheassistantdistrictattorneygeneralapprovedandsignedthecontentsoftheorder.Acopywasmadeapartoftheminutesofthecourt.JudgeCalhounsignedtheminutes.Theclerkdidnotstamptheorder"filed"priortoplacingtheorderintheminutes.  In1997,thegrandjuryreturnedanindictmentchargingthatthedefendantoperatedamotorvehicleinviolationoftheorderenteredin1993.   #  1      ׀The ,"% defendantfiledamotiontodismisstheindictment,claimingthe1993orderwasinvalid.Whenthetrialcourtoverruledthemotiontodismiss,thedefendantpledguilty,reservingthecertifiedquestionoflawchallengingthevalidityofthetrafficoffenderorder. f5,/   Initially,actionsundertheMotorVehicleOffendersActarecivilin r5,1 nature.Bankstonv.State,815S.W.2d213,216(Tenn.Crim.App.1991).In `  Bankston,thiscourtruledthatoneshouldmountanyattackuponthehabitual ,  offenderjudgmentthroughRule60oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure:X 4Onmotionanduponsuchtermsasarejust,thecourtmayrelieveapartyortheparty'slegalrepresentativefromafinaljudgment,orderorproceedingforthefollowingreasons:(1)mistake,inadvertence,surprise,orexcusableneglect;(2)fraud(whetherheretoforedenominatedintrinsicorextrinsic),misrepresentation,orothermisconductofanadverseparty;(3)thejudgmentisvoid;(4)thejudgmenthasbeensatisfied,released,ordischarged,orapriorjudgmentuponwhichitisbasedhasbeenreversedorotherwisevacated,oritisnolongerequitablethatajudgmentshouldhaveprospectiveapplication;or(5)anyotherreasonjustifyingrelieffromtheoperationofthejudgment.Themotionshallbemadewithinareasonabletime,andforreasons(1)and(2)notmorethanoneyearafterthejudgment,orderorproceedingwasenteredortaken.4 7X)ETenn.R.Civ.P.60.02.  Here,thedefendantdidnotattacktheorderunderRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.;instead,hefiledamotiontodismisstheindictmentcharginghimwithviolatingtheorder.SeeRule12,Tenn.R.Crim.P.Acollateralattackinaseparate :% proceedingsuchasthisisnotpermissible.Everhartv.State,563S.W.2d795,797 '! 98(Tenn.Crim.App.1978)."'Iftheattackbecollateralinitsnature,anattackmaynotbemadeevenonthegroundoffraud.'"Id.at798(citationsomitted). *>!%   EvenifthedefendanthadproceededunderRule60,thechallengetotheorderwouldhavefailed.TheorderdeclaringthedefendanttobeanhabitualtrafficoffendermustcomplywithRule58,Tenn.R.Civ.P.:X 4  ENTRYOFJUDGMENTEntryofajudgmentoranorderoffinaldispositioniseffectivewhenajudgmentcontainingoneofthefollowing f5,1 ismarkedonthefacebytheclerkasfiledforentry: L6,2 (1) < thesignaturesofthejudgeandallpartiesor 27-3 counsel,or(2) < thesignaturesofthejudgeandonepartyor 8/5 counselwithacertificateofcounselthatacopyoftheproposedorderhasbeenservedonallotherpartiesorcounsel,or(3) < thesignatureofthejudgeandacertificateofthe   clerkthatacopyhasbeenservedonallotherpartiesorcounsel....Followingentryofjudgment,theclerkshallmakeappropriatedocketnotationsandshallcopythejudgmentontheminutes,butfailuretodosowillnotaffectvalidityoftheentryofjudgment.4 X(emphasisadded).Theadvisorycommissioncommentstotheruleprovidethat"theeffectivedateofajudgmentisthedateofitsfilingwiththeclerkafterbeingsignedbythejudge,eventhoughitmaynotbecopiedorenteredontheminutebookuntilalaterdate."  Inourview,theclerk'sfailuretofilestamptheorderwouldgenerallycausetheordertobeineffective.Theplainlanguageoftheruleprovidesthattheorderbecomeseffectiveonlyaftertheclerkmarkstheorderasfiled.Tenn.R.Civ.P.58.SeeTeresaMayreneKingMayesv.GaryStephenMayes,C.A.No.03A01 !B 9404CV00121(Tenn.App.,atKnoxville,Jan.11,1995)(findingfinaljudgmentwasnoteffectivebecausetheclerkhadnotmarkedthejudgmentasfiledforentry).  Thedefendantdidnot,however,challengetheorderinatimelyfashion.UnderRule60.02,Tenn.R.Civ.P.,thedefendantmustacttosetasidetheorderwithina"reasonabletime."Here,almostthreeyearselapsedbeforethedefendantchallengedtheorder.Noreasonisgivenforthedelay.Moreover,becausethedefendantplacedhissignatureontheorder,hewasfullyawarethathehadbeenprohibitedfromdriving.SeeStatev.DonD.Williams,No,No.03C0194404 1n(- CR00148)(Tenn.Crim.App.,atKnoxville,Jan.13,1995)(thecourtfoundaneightyeardelayinchallengingthetrafficoffenderorderwasreasonablebecausetheorderwasadefaultjudgmentaboutwhichthedefendanthadnoknowledgeforseveralyears).Thedelaymaybeunreasonablewherethedefendantknowsofthe 8/5 judgmentagainsthimandoffersnoreasonforhisfailuretotimelychallengethejudgment.MagnavoxCo.v.Boles& `  HiteConstr.Co.,583S.W.2d611,61314(Tenn.App.1979).Thethreeyeardelay, ,  underthesecircumstances,wasunreasonable.  Accordingly,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.   <      D __________________________________   <      D GaryR.Wade,PresidingJudgeCONCUR:̛̛________________________________DavidH.Welles,Judge________________________________ThomasT.Woodall,Judge