WPCY EOlP#G=tmg?6;jU94,*dWڳ/Ag7DC\b  |X% _] 7g!k3gp9Qp,)$l"s^s*oHdqbg;Z"ܘ!]Ɗ|壃qBAG\M@)I) 0ffkO4\K[x5ȯG9y ڝcI/Uh͚@y@,# hUNs % 0(LU:;buw@}4 0 0DZU:D U:~ Z &U:@&zU: B 0D D3;;;; AQn 0D 0D D/  B<HP LaserJet 4HPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nL(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,|AZ"Arial Regular- - VWUXYUZD[U\]e^ӀjV&3|xl(v(2%$ !  XXXXXXX `   0  (#$  0   P  $XXa XXX) XXa `   1    Appelleecontendsthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdeterminedthatitdidnothavejurisdictionto `  considerhismotion.Weconcludethatthetrialcourtwascorrect.ThejurisdictionofthisCourtattachesuponthefilingofanoticeofappealand,thus,thetrialcourtlosesjurisdiction.SeeStatev.Pendergrass,  | 937S.W.2d834,837(Tenn.1996).Therefore, [a]sageneralrule,thetrialcourtmaynothearmotionsfiledsubsequentlytothefilingofthenoticeofappeal.Statev.TonyCraigWoods,No.01C019606CR X  00238,1997WL602865,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Sept.30,1997).Inaddition,thefindingsthatAppelleeaskedthetrialcourttomake,suchasanexpressfindingthattheDepartmentofSafetyreinstatedAppelleesdrivingprivilegesafterAppelleepaidafee,wouldhavehadnoimpactonthedecisioninthiscase.,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular P  $XXa XXX) XXa `   1    Appelleecontendsthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdeterminedthatitdidnothavejurisdictionto `  considerhismotion.Weconcludethatthetrialcourtwascorrect.ThejurisdictionofthisCourtattachesuponthefilingofanoticeofappealand,thus,thetrialcourtlosesjurisdiction.SeeStatev.Pendergrass,  | 937S.W.2d834,837(Tenn.1996).Therefore, [a]sageneralrule,thetrialcourtmaynothearmotionsfiledsubsequentlytothefilingofthenoticeofappeal.Statev.TonyCraigWoods,No.01C019606CR X  00238,1997WL602865,at*2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,Sept.30,1997).Inaddition,thefindingsthatAppelleeaskedthetrialcourttomake,suchasanexpressfindingthattheDepartmentofSafetyreinstatedAppelleesdrivingprivilegesafterAppelleepaidafee,wouldhavehadnoimpactonthedecisioninthiscase.  ("  XZXXXK\XXZ   Ad FILEDXZXK\   March23,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. XXZAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  ("  XZXXXK\XXZ   Ad FILEDXZXK\   March17,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr. XXZAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular d(3$ !  'dxd'(!)*C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  ($$   1  ++' dxdP Pd !  ^]]^` XX>TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7~XXdXXd7      j^r&"<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$,` r^jjr&"<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$,` rj^^INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATKNOXVILLEDECEMBERSESSION,1998  STATEOFTENNESSEE,  )  C.C.A.NO.03C019802CC00079 `  `     h   ) `  ` Appellant,   h   ) X   `     h   ) `     h   )  ANDERSONCOUNTY X  VS. `     h   )   X   `     h   )  HON.JAMESB.SCOTT,JR.  X   ROYL.HOWARD,  h   )  JUDGE  X   `     h   )  X  ` Appellee.   h   )  (DirectAppealMotorVehicle X  `     h   )  HabitualOffender) X      FORTHEAPPELLANT: h     FORTHEAPPELLEE: 8 CHRISTOPHERVANRIPER    JOHNKNOXWALKUP (! Stuart&VanRiper h     AttorneyGeneralandReporter  " 300MarketStreet,Suite200Clinton,TN37716 h     ELLENH.POLLACK $  `     h     AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h     425FifthAvenueNorth `     h     Nashville,TN37243 `     h     JAMESN.RAMSEY `     h     DistrictAttorneyGeneral `     h     JANHICKS `     h     AssistantDistrictAttorney `     h     Room127,AndersonCo.Courthouse `     h     Clinton,TN37716OPINIONFILED________________________REVERSEDANDREMANDEDJERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE  x6-.F   >OPINION #> # `     ` OnMay2,1997,theStatefiledapetitionintheAndersonCountyCriminalCourtinwhichitsoughttohaveAppelleeRoyL.HowarddeclaredamotorvehiclehabitualoffenderpursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsections5510601,etseq.ThetrialcourtconductedahearingonthepetitiononNovember7,1997,andthecourtsubsequentlydeniedthepetitionbyanorderdatedFebruary11,1998.TheStatechallengesthetrialcourtsdenialofitspetition.Afterareviewoftherecord,wemustreversethejudgmentofthetrialcourt.@II, FACTS  ,  ` OnJanuary1andJanuary8,1996,Appelleewascitedfordrivingonasuspendedlicense.OnJanuary9,1996,Appelleepledguiltytobothoftheseoffenses.AppelleewasalsocitedfordrivingonasuspendedlicenseonAugust25,1996,andhepledguiltytothatoffenseonNovember26,1996. ` OnMay2,1997,theStatefileditspetitiontohaveAppelleedeclaredamotorvehiclehabitualoffender.OnOctober10,1997,whilethepetitionwasstillpendingbeforethetrialcourt,theTennesseeDepartmentofSafetyapparentlyacceptedmonetaryfeesfromAppelleeandreinstatedhisdrivingprivileges. ` OnNovember7,1997,thetrialcourtconductedahearingontheStatespetition.ThetrialcourtdeniedthepetitionbyanorderdatedFebruary11,1998.Althoughthetrialcourtsordercontainsnofindingsandnoexplanationofwhythe \8.0 petitionwasdenied,thetranscriptofthehearingindicatesthatthetrialcourtdeniedthepetitionbecausetheDepartmentofSafetyhadreinstatedAppelleesdrivingprivilegesafterhepaidafee. ` TheStatefiledanoticeofappealonFebruary23,1998.OnMarch10,1998,Appelleefiledamotioninwhichheaskedthetrialcourttoamendthejudgmentandmakeadditionalfindingsoffact.OnApril3,1998,thetrialcourtdeniedAppelleesmotionafteritconcludedthatbecausetheStatehadalreadyfilednoticeofappeal,thetrialcourthadnojurisdictiontoamendthejudgmentormakeadditionalfindingsoffact.]]] ]  #  1      ׀ p @* ANALYSIS  P  ` TheStatecontendsthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdismissedtheStatespetitionmerelybecausetheDepartmentofSafetyacceptedfeesfromAppelleeandreinstatedhisdrivingprivileges.Weagree. ` UnderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510603,amotorvehiclehabitualoffenderis:VV0 ` Anypersonwho,duringathree-yearperiod,isconvictedinaTennesseecourtorcourtsofthree(3)ormoreofthefollowingoffenses;anypersonwho,duringafive-yearperiod,isconvictedinaTennesseecourtorcourtsofthree(3)ormoreofthefollowingoffenses;oranypersonwho,during (1') aten-yearperiod,isconvictedinaTennesseecourtorcourtsoffive(5)ormoreofthefollowingoffenses;provided,thatifthefive-orten-yearperiodisused,one(1)ofsuchoffensesoccurredafterJuly1,1991: ` T$` T$ 0 ` 0 ` T$` T$....W  T$ T$ WXVVXXXXX0 ` 0 ` T$` T$(x)Aviolationof55-50-504,relativetodrivingoncanceled,suspended,orrevokedlicense....Y  T$ T$ YXXTenn.CodeAnn.5510603(2)(A)(1998).Inaddition,section5510613providesthat ifthecourtfindsthat[the]defendantisanhabitualoffender,thecourtshallmakeanorderdirectingthatsuchpersonshallnotoperateamotorvehicleonthehighwaysofthisstateandthatsuchpersonshallsurrendertothecourtalllicensestooperateamotorvehicleuponthehighwaysofthisstate.Tenn.Crim.App.5510613(a)(1998).Theperiodduringwhichamotorvehiclehabitualoffenderisprohibitedfromobtaininganotherdriverslicensemustbeatleastthreeyears.Tenn.CodeAnn.5510615(1998). ` Itisevidentthatundersection5510603,thesolecriteriatobeusedbyatrialcourtindeterminingwhetheradefendantisamotorvehiclehabitualoffenderiswhetherornotthedefendanthasbeenconvictedoftherequirednumberofspecifiedoffensesduringtheprescribedtimeperiod.TheactionsoftheDepartmentofSafetyarecompletelyirrelevanttothisdetermination.See P* " Statev.Loden,920S.W.2d261,264(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)( Astatutegiving @,"$ ajudgetherighttoprohibitcertainindividualsfromdrivingmotorvehiclesforcertainperiodsisnotrelatedtonordependentuponsectionsgivingtheDepartmentofSafetythepowertogrant,revoke,orsuspendlicenses.). ` AppelleecontendsthatbecausetheDepartmentofSafetyacceptedmoneyfromhimandreinstatedhisdrivingprivileges,theStateshouldbeestoppedfromseekingrevocationofhislicenseundertheMotorVehicleHabitualOffenderAct. 9p02  Generallyspeaking,thedoctrineofestoppelisnotfavoredunderourlaw.Sextonv.SevierCounty,948S.W.2d747,750(Tenn.Ct.App.1997)(citations P  omitted).Infact, veryexceptionalcircumstancesarerequiredtoinvokethedoctrineagainsttheStateanditsgovernmentalsubdivisions.Id.(citations 0 omitted).Further, [e]stoppelisappropriateagainstgovernmentagenciesonlywhentheagencyinducedthepartytogiveuppropertyorarightinexchangeforapromise.ElizabethtonHous.&Dev.Agency,Inc.v.Price,844S.W.2d614,   618(Tenn.Ct.App.1992)(citationsomitted).ThereisnoproofintherecordthattheStateinducedAppelleetodoanything.ThereisabsolutelynoproofintherecordthattheDepartmentofSafetyeverpromisedAppelleethatifhepaidafee,hisdrivingprivilegeswouldbepermanentlyrestored.Further,AppelleedidnotgiveanymoneytotheDepartmentofSafetyuntilafterheknewthattheStatehadfiledthepetitiontohavehimdeclaredamotorvehiclehabitualoffender.Underthesecircumstances,thedoctrineofestoppelhasnoapplicationtothiscase. ` AppelleealsocontendsthatthisCourtshoulddismissthiscasebecausetheissueofdeclaringhimtobeamotorvehiclehabitualoffenderbecamemootaftertheDepartmentofSafetyrestoredhisdrivingprivileges.Theconceptofmootnessdealswiththecircumstancesthatrenderacasenolongerjusticiable.McIntyrev.Traughber,884S.W.2d134,137(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Amootcase 0.$& isonethathaslostitscharacterasapresent,livecontroversy.Id.Acasewill  0&( generallybeconsideredmootifitnolongerservesasameanstoproviderelieftotheprevailingparty.Id.Aspreviouslystated,theactionsoftheDepartment 4*, ofSafetyarecompletelyirrelevanttothequestionofwhetherAppelleeshouldbe declaredamotorvehiclehabitualoffender.Thus,itisobviousthatthiscase 7.0 involvesalivecontroversythatcanserveasameanstoproviderelieftotheState.Inshort,thiscaseisnotmoot.  ` Inconclusion,weholdthatthetrialcourterredwhenitdismissedtheStatespetitionmerelybecausetheDepartmentofSafetyacceptedmoneyfromAppelleeandreinstatedhisdrivingprivileges.Accordingly,wereversethejudgmentofthetrialcourtandweremandthiscaseforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.RM# XXa #MRZ `  `  `  `  ` Z  Z ` Z[[ `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   JERR\Y\L.SMITH,JUDGECONCUR:___________________________________DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE___________________________________JAMESCURWOODWITT,JR.JUDGE