ÿWPCž+ …# VU:a %› 0 ¡w@¥ 4å ù 0H 0DP 0J” 0TÞ 0^2 0hø 0r 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dyU*ÝB)DC0 AMs BÀ»Ý5˜—Ídïf D3U àˆ v~h" 0@æ#vÓ&$ AOù)ÆH* 0D+ D/R+ B+˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX(Üg$¡¡Ñ°ÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€YXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ EDDD eÓ€Ô¡¨ 3|x&(ø(3`$¤¤Ý ƒg!ÝѰÑÑ€°ÑÒ€°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ïçXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ±Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌMayÏ7,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔIt€is€the€policy€of€this€Court€to€refer€to€minor€victims€of€sexual€abuse€by€their€initials€only.€€òòState€v.ÏSchimpfóó,€782€S.W.2d€186,€188€n.1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1989).Ô€ XÔÌ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔThere€is€nothing€in€the€record€which€indicates€the€substance€of€this€conversation.€€However,€itÏis€likely€that€the€conversation€provided€some€confirmation€of€the€victimððs€accusations€because€aÏdetective€testified€at€the€suppression€hearing€that€appellant€became€a€suspect€at€this€point.Ì øÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔWe€note€that€the€supreme€court€has€promulgated€an€amendment€to€the€Advisory€CommissionÏComments€for€Rule€37(b)(2)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€If€approved€by€theÏlegislature,€the€Comments€will€advise€attorneys€to€be€certain€that€the€application€fully€comports€with€theÏòòPrestonóó€requirements€because€failure€to€follow€these€dictates€could€result€in€dismissal€of€the€appeal.€Ì åÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔIt€is€irrelevant€that€the€State€did€not€contest€appellate€review€at€the€trial€level€or€on€appeal.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Bowlinóó,€871€S.W.2d€170,€172„73€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).€€We€are€compelled€to€raise€anyÏdefect€relating€to€the€certified€question€sua€sponte€because€it€relates€to€the€very€nature€of€ourÏjurisdiction.€€òòId.óó€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Charlotte€Littleóó,€No.€02C01„9504„CR„00113€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€atÏKnoxville,€January€30,€1996),€òòperm.óó€òòtoóó€òòappealóó€òòdeniedóó€(Tenn.€1996);€òòState€v.€Larry€David€Tharpeóó,€No.Ï02C01„9302„CC„00018€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Jackson,€February€23,€1994).Ì$$$$'ÿÿdxd ÖÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ ôÔWe€assume€this€delay€is€attributed€to€the€appellantððs€pursuit€of€an€interlocutory€appeal€in€thisÏCourt.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÑ  ÑÑ € ÑÒ € ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ#€Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ý›œÙ€€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|` , `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌÌà@ à€€DECEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àNo.€01C01„9603„CR„00123€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à à€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWILSON€COUNTYÌV.à àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€J.€O.€BOND,ÌJAMES€O.€GAMBRELL,€SR.,à àà à)à àJUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà àà à)à à(Certified€Question€of€Law)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Appellee:óóÌÌGary€Vandeverà àà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ108€North€Greenwood€Streetà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌP.O.€Box€642à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌLebanon,€TN€37088à àà àà àà àDaryl€J.€Brandà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€37243„0493ÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àTom€P.€Thompson,€Jr.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€N.€HibbettÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à111€Cherry€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLebanon,€TN€37087ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€___________________ÌÌÌAPPEAL€DISMISSEDÌÌÌWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÇà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€of€a€certified€question€of€law€pursuant€to€Rule€37(b)(2)(i)€ofÏthe€Tennessee€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€In€accordance€with€a€plea€agreement,Ïappellant€pled€guilty€to€two€counts€of€incest€and€one€count€of€rape.€€He€received€fourÏ(4)€year€sentences€each€on€the€incest€charges€and€a€ten€(10)€year€sentence€on€theÏrape€offense.€€All€sentences€were€ordered€to€run€concurrently€for€an€effectiveÏsentence€of€ten€(10)€years€in€the€Department€of€Correction.Ìà àAccording€to€the€order€entered€by€the€trial€court,€the€certified€question€of€law€isÏas€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àWas€the€interrogation€of€the€Defendant,€James€O.€Gambrell,€Sr.,€duringÏthe€accusatory€stage€of€the€criminal€process[,]€a€custodial€interrogationÏsuch€as€to€warrant€the€suppression€of€the€pre„trial€statement€that€heÏgave€since€officers€did€not€advise€him€of€his€ð ðMirandaðð€rights.ÌÌÓÓUpon€review€of€the€record,€we€have€determined€that€this€question€of€law€would€notÏhave€been€dispositive€of€appellantððs€case.€€It€is,€therefore,€not€a€proper€question€forÏour€review.€€The€appeal€is€dismissed.Ìà àOn€March€31,€1993,€J.G.,× ƒ& ××  ×€reported€allegations€of€sexual€abuse€to€theÏDepartment€of€Human€Services€(DHS).€€She€alleged€that€appellant,€her€father,€hadÏbeen€having€sexual€relations€with€her€throughout€her€teenage€years.€€The€recordÍalso€reveals€that€she€had€run€away€from€home€two€days€earlier.€€DHS€notified€theÏWilson€County€Sheriffððs€Department€of€these€allegations.€€At€the€prompting€of€DHSÏand€law€enforcement€officials,€J.G.€made€a€phone€call€to€her€father€which€was€tape„recorded.× ƒ' ××  ×€Ìà àOfficials€from€DHS€then€decided€to€speak€with€the€victimððs€parents€and€discussÏplacement€of€the€victim€as€she€did€not€wish€to€return€home.€€As€a€result,€a€deputy€fromÏthe€Wilson€County€Sheriffððs€Office€contacted€appellant€and€his€wife€at€their€home€atÏabout€7:30€p.m.€€The€deputy€requested€that€they€come€to€the€Sheriffððs€Department€soÏthat€DHS€officials€could€speak€to€them€about€their€daughter.€€The€Gambrells€arrivedÏat€the€Sheriffððs€Department€about€8:00€p.m.€€Mrs.€Gambrell€met€with€DHS€officials€andÏappellant€agreed€to€speak€with€two€detectives€in€the€Sheriffððs€Department.€€AtÏapproximately€10:15€p.m.,€appellant€signed€a€written€statement€confessing€to€theÏsexual€abuse€of€his€daughter€over€a€period€of€years.€€Appellant€and€his€wife€returnedÏhome€after€he€gave€his€statement.€€On€April€13,€1993,€appellant€was€indicted€on€tenÏ(10)€counts€of€incest€and€ten€(10)€counts€of€rape.€€He€was€arrested€two€days€later.Ìà àAppellant€filed€a€motion€to€suppress€his€March€31€statement€and€a€hearingÏwas€held€in€the€trial€court€on€December€3,€1993.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€appellantððsÏstatement€was€admissible,€but€admitted€that€it€was€a€ð ðvery€close€question.ðð€€BasedÍupon€the€Stateððs€concession€that€the€statement€was€the€ð ðcornerstoneðð€of€its€case,€theÏtrial€court€granted€appellantððs€request€for€an€interlocutory€appeal€to€this€Court.€€ThisÏCourt€declined€to€hear€the€appeal€and€the€parties€prepared€for€trial.€€A€pleaÏagreement€was€negotiated€between€appellant€and€the€State€and€accepted€by€theÏtrial€court€on€the€day€scheduled€for€trial.€€The€plea€agreement€specifically€reservedÏthe€above€certified€question€of€law.€€Ìà àTennessee€Rule€of€Criminal€Procedure€37(b)(2)(i)€permits€a€defendant€toÏreserve€for€appeal€a€certified€question€of€law€when€entering€into€a€plea€agreement.€ÏThe€rule€requires€that€the€question€be€dispositive€of€the€case€and€that€the€State€andÏtrial€court€consent€to€appellate€review€of€the€question.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€37(b)(2)(i).ÏHowever,€the€Rule€does€not€set€forth€the€necessary€steps€to€be€taken€in€the€trial€courtÏto€preserve€the€question.€€Our€supreme€court€has€supplied€the€explicit€requirementsÏthat€must€be€met€before€appellate€consideration€of€a€certified€question€of€law€isÏproper.€€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647€(Tenn.€1988).€€The€prerequisites€forÏappellate€review€are:ÌÓÓà8 à1.à àThe€final€order€or€judgment€from€the€trial€court€must€contain€aÏstatement€of€the€dispositive€certified€question€of€law€reserved€byÏdefendant;ÌÌà8 à2.à àThe€order€of€the€trial€court€must€include€a€statement€that€theÏquestion€was€expressly€reserved€pursuant€to€a€plea€agreement;€ÌÌà8 à3.à àThe€order€must€assert€that€the€State€and€the€trial€judgeÏconsented€to€the€reservation€of€the€question,€and€that€the€State€and€theÏtrial€judge€believe€the€question€is€dispositive€of€the€case;ÌÌà8 à4.à àThe€question€of€law€must€be€clearly€stated€to€identify€the€scopeÏand€limits€of€the€legal€issue€reserved;€and€ÌÌà8 à5.à àThe€reasons€relied€upon€by€the€defendant€at€the€suppressionÏhearing€must€be€identified€and€appellate€review€is€limited€to€thoseÏgrounds€passed€upon€by€the€trial€court.ÌÌÓÓòòIdóó€at€650.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€919€S.W.2d€619,€621€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€ÏThe€usual€remedy€for€non„compliance€with€òòPrestonóó€is€dismissal€of€the€appeal.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Bowlinóó,€871€S.W.2d€170,€173€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993)€(holding€that€thisÏCourt€uniformly€dismisses€appeals€in€which€no€modicum€of€compliance€is€present).× ƒ( ××  ×Ìà àOur€review€of€the€record€indicates€that€appellant€has€complied€with€theÏprocedural€requirements€of€òòPrestonóó.€€The€trial€courtððs€order€accepting€appellantððsÏguilty€pleas€clearly€sets€forth€the€certified€question€of€law€and€states€that€the€pleaÏagreement€expressly€reserves€the€right€to€appeal€this€question€of€law.€€Additionally,Ïthe€order€contains€a€statement€that€the€trial€judge€and€the€State€consented× ƒ) ××  ×€to€theÍreservation€and€that€the€question€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€€The€judgment€form€onÏeach€conviction€also€notes€the€reservation€of€a€certified€question€of€law.€ÏNevertheless,€we€are€unable€to€address€the€merits€of€the€certified€question.Ìà àSatisfaction€of€the€technical€requirements€does€not€ensure€review€by€anÏappellate€court.€€Appellate€review€of€a€properly€reserved€question€of€law€is€permittedÏonly€when€the€certified€question€addresses€a€dispositive€issue.€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï37(b)(2)(i);€òòState€v.€Prestonóó,€759€S.W.2d€647,€650€(Tenn.€1988).€€An€appellate€courtÏis€not€bound€by€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€an€issue€is€dispositive.€€òòPrestonóó,Ï759€S.W.2d€at€651€(Opinion€on€Petition€to€Rehear).€€In€fact,€the€appellate€court€isÏrequired€to€make€an€independent€determination€of€the€dispositive€nature€of€theÏquestion.€€òòId.óó€€If€the€record€before€the€court€does€not€clearly€demonstrate€how€theÏquestion€is€dispositive,€appellate€review€must€be€denied.€€òòId.óó€€Ìà àAt€both€the€suppression€hearing€and€the€plea€agreement€hearing,€the€courtÏexpressed€its€belief€that€the€ð ðcustodial€interrogationðð€question€was€dispositive€of€theÏcase.€€While€the€admissibility€of€the€appellantððs€confession€may€have€beenÏdispositive€at€the€time€of€the€suppression€hearing,€it€was€not€dispositive€by€the€time€ofÏtrial.€€At€this€early€stage€of€the€proceedings,€appellantððs€signed€confession€was€theÏð ðcornerstoneðð€of€the€Stateððs€case€according€to€the€assistant€district€attorney.€ÍApparently,€appellantððs€daughter,€the€victim,€was€reluctant€to€testify€at€that€time.€€WithÏno€other€proof€available,€it€is€clear€that€the€admissibility€of€the€statement€would€haveÏbeen€dispositive€of€the€case.€€Ìà àHowever,€two€years€passed€before€the€case€was€set€for€trial€and€appellantÏentered€his€guilty€pleas.× ƒ+ ××  ×€€The€character€of€the€Stateððs€proof€changed€substantiallyÏduring€that€time.€€At€the€plea€hearing,€the€State€informed€the€trial€court€that€it€wouldÏhave€presented€testimony€from€the€victim€had€the€case€gone€to€trial.€€This€testimonyÏwould€have€reflected€that€during€the€victimððs€teenage€years€she€and€her€father€hadÏsexual€intercourse€on€many€occasions,€including€vaginal€intercourse,€anal€sex€andÏoral€sex.€€According€to€the€victim,€between€1990€and€1992,€they€had€intercourse€atÏleast€ten€times€per€month€and€in€1993€they€had€intercourse€approximately€ten€timesÏin€January,€February€and€March,€until€the€victim€ran€away€from€home.€€In€order€toÏsupport€the€elements€of€rape,€the€victim€would€have€testified€that€in€the€beginning,Ïshe€was€not€willing€to€participate,€that€she€cried€and€did€not€want€to€have€sex€withÏappellant,€but€that€he€coerced€her€into€doing€so.€€Ìà àConsidering€the€availability€of€the€victimððs€testimony,€we€cannot€agree€with€theÏtrial€court€that€the€admissibility€of€the€appellantððs€confession€is€dispositive€of€the€case.€ÏIt€is€apparent€from€the€proposed€testimony€of€the€victim€that€a€reasonable€trier€of€factÍcould€have€found€the€appellant€guilty€of€numerous€counts€of€rape€and€incest€withoutÏthe€State€ever€introducing€his€confession.€€Had€the€confession€been€admitted€at€trialÏand€determined€to€be€error€on€appeal,€the€remedy€would€have€been€to€remand€theÏcase€for€a€new€trial.€€An€issue€may€not€be€considered€dispositive€when€remand€for€aÏnew€trial€would€be€required.€€òòState€v.€Wilkesóó,€684€S.W.2d€663,€667€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1984).€€Thus,€the€issue€is€not€dispositive€and€the€admissibility€of€appellantððsÏconfession€is€not€a€proper€question€for€appellate€review.€€The€appeal€is€dismissed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWilliam€M.€Barker,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJoe€G.€Riley,€Judge