WPC =u4,9_ 6q"Υ_K ie~*`6%6+, ~P9R Y{ s #+kGnOH3&RVf)6V񑦮MS/ĠH"%39uͯ]`D:QL~zQn,zL0J`*?I]^>jZ$w! 6Dq1J%d0^ |0Det*dyhNoh-*F೘ ,[jR KW tݓB#Nb %\^ b 0nU NwD4H\ zk m  0D *   | B NRT#\E%U N'(uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuub 0 B 0 D5Q D- 0K ASQ 0 0D A]/ (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regulary.:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU  H (#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  R$      1  ݜ  _Althoughwedonotaddresstheissueonitsmerits,wedonotethatthiscourthasaddressedthisissueon  numerousprioroccasions.See,e.g.,Statev.RobertA.Sisson,No.W200101666CCAR3CD,2003Tenn.Crim.App. q LEXIS197,at*5(Tenn.Crim.App.Mar.4,2003,atJackson),perm.toapp.denied(Tenn.2003);Statev.Clever,70 2 S.W.3d771,77677(Tenn.Crim.App.2001);Statev.JaniceCarolBiskner,No.E200001440CCAR3CD,2001 C Tenn.Crim.App.LEXIS887,at*25(Tenn.Crim.App.Nov.13,2001,atKnoxville). \\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(I Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.8ydXXd8         0  ݜ d(|38$ !.8ydXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|38$ !.8ydXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ydd8     _  y8XXdd8  ly ?T@hhlINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#l<#Ԉ    November4,2003Session > XGXl #lXXG,#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.SYLVESTERGAILES,JR.XGXl  0  Direct @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  " @@No.0012589J.C.McLin,Judge   @@*AV) ` dE<i` A j  @@TTNo.W200202080CCAR3CDFiledDecember3,_2003_ _  AV) ` dE<*` A +{     Thedefendantpledguiltytofourthoffensedrivingundertheinfluence(DUIfourthoffense),a  p  felony,andreceivedatwoyearsentencewithallbut150dayssuspended.Pursuanttoaplea V agreementreservingacertifiedquestionoflaw,hecontendsthatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection < 5510403(a)(3),thestatutesettingforththemethodofdeterminingpriorconvictions,is " unconstitutionalasappliedtohiscase.Wedismisstheappealforlackofjurisdictionafter  concludingthecertifiedquestionoflawisnotdispositiveofthecase.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;AppealDismissed  j   #lXG#XGX.lJoeG.Riley,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.WellesandJohnEverett 6 Williams,JJ.,joined. l RandallB.Tolley,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellant,SylvesterGailes,Jr. 8 PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;JenniferL.Bledsoe,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;  WilliamL.Gibbons,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andPerryS.HayesandKimkeaLasheaHarris,  AssistantDistrictAttorneysGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee.     OPINION #lXXG #XGXl L"" #lXXG #  XGXl  ThedefendantwasarrestedonMarch19,2000,andchargedwith_DUI_Ԅfourthoffense,a $h$ ClassEfelony.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.5510403(a)(1).Theindictmentallegedhehadthreeprior $N % convictionsfordrivingundertheinfluence,oneonNovember28,1994,andtwoonSeptember21, %4!& 1988.Hepledguiltyto_DUI_Ԅfourthoffenseand,pursuanttoapleaagreement,reservedacertified &"' questionoflaw.Inthisappeal,heasksthiscourttodeterminewhetherthefollowinghighlighted '#( portionofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection5510403(a)(3)isconstitutional: (#) 8  Forpurposesofthissection,apersonwhoisconvictedofaviolationof55-10-401 b*%+ shallnotbeconsideredarepeatormultipleoffenderandsubjecttothepenalties H+&, prescribedinsubsection(a),iften(10)ormoreyearshaveelapsedbetweensuch .,~'- convictionandanyimmediatelyprecedingconvictionforaviolation.If,however, -d(. apersonhasbeenconvictedofaviolationof55-10-401withinten(10)yearsofthe -J)/  ?T  H    presentviolation,thensuchpersonshallbeconsideredamultipleoffenderandis  subjecttothepenaltiesimposeduponmultipleoffendersbytheprovisionsof  #adddsubsection(a). Ifapersonisconsideredamultipleoffenderunderthissubdivision, | #ddadtheneveryconvictionforaviolationof55-10-401,withinten(10)yearsofthe b immediatelyprecedingviolationshallbeconsideredindeterminingthenumber H ofprioroffenses,butinnoeventshallaconvictionforaviolationoccurring . ~ morethantwenty(20)yearsfromthedateoftheinstantconvictionbe  d consideredforsuchpurpose.  J     Thedefendantcontendstheprovisionoperatesinan unconstitutionallyretrospective    mannerasitappliestohis1988convictionsfordrivingundertheinfluence.  #  1      ׀Thus,heargueshe    couldonlybeprosecutedfor_DUI_Ԅsecondoffense.Weareunabletoaddressthemeritsofthisnon   _dispositive_Ԁissuesincewearewithoutjurisdictiontohearthisappeal. x    Ourstatesupremecourthasoutlinedtherequirementsforcertifyingaquestionoflawtothe D  appellatecourts.SeeStatev.Preston,759S.W.2d647,650(Tenn.1988).ThePrestonrequirements *z  #cdddarenowincorporatedintoRule37.SeeTenn.R._Crim_.P.37(b)(2)(_i_),(iv).Ifthoserequirementsare ` #ddcdnotmet,theappealmustbedismissed.Statev._Pendergrass_,937S.W.2d834,838(Tenn.1996). F Amongtherequirementsforaproperlycertifiedquestionoflawisthatitmustbe _dispositive_Ԁofthe , case.Tenn.R._Crim_.P.37(b)(2)(_i_),(iv).    Anissueis_dispositive_Ԁwhentheappellatecourt musteitheraffirmthejudgmentorreverse  anddismiss.Statev.Walton,41S.W.3d75,96(Tenn.2001)(quotingStatev.Wilkes,684 t S.W.2d663,667(Tenn._Crim_.App.1984)).Anissueisneverdeemedtobe_dispositive_Ԁwhenthe Z appellatecourtmightreverseandremand.Wilkes,684S.W.2dat667.Inthecaseunderreview, @ thepartiesandthetrialcourtcertifiedtheissuewas_dispositive_Ԁofthecase;however,anappellate &v courtisnotboundbythetrialcourtsdeterminationthatanissueis_dispositive_.Preston,759S.W.2d  \ at651.Rather,thecourtmustmakeanindependentdeterminationofthe_dispositive_Ԁnatureofthe B issueandmustdenyappellatereviewifthecourtdeterminestheissueisnot_dispositive_.Id. ( #cddd  Recently,inStatev.JamesH.Thompson,No.M200202137CCAR3CD,2003Tenn._Crim_.  #ddcdApp.LEXIS889(Tenn.Crim.App.Oct.13,2003,atNashville),ourcourtwasaskedtoaddressa   similarcertifiedquestionconcerningthestatesrighttoprosecuteadefendantasamultipleDUI p!  offender.ReasoningthatthereliefrequestedbydefendantThompsonwouldmerelynecessitatea V"! remandratherthanadismissal,thecourtconcludedthequestionbeforeitwasnotdispositiveofthe <#" case.Id.at*7.Likewise,intheinstantcase,thedefendantconcedesthereliefheseekswouldnot "$r# resultinthedismissaloftheindictment;instead,itwouldrequirehiscasetoberemandedfor %X $ considerationofthechargeof_DUI_Ԅsecondoffense. %>!%   &$"&   Accordingly,theissuebeforeusisnot_dispositive_Ԁofthedefendantscase.Becausethe   certifiedquestionoflawisnotproperlybeforethiscourt,wedismissforlackofjurisdiction.    0 `     h   0` (#` (#򀀀. ~(#(#    `     h     JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE