WPCd JQ%]-4e߼QAxZ=ĉ_߭OTZ 9`q Np)~+O/;౽;{Wu^b'칺lP^^F;~I86 -!~j65M=Vi^ȇ [E&0A"q:)aa+J6 :-1yPZh5N߷0M_@sgm]~`P9sMj# ?1ؚye+01"Pəv}]9)ܤms7crpyNB߷D1ˆfә?[;_)n #bDm9J4* BZJ|`gp~hkJxGmDz#|1жq/ǐxh~ = ^Q֤p쯝 }F5-3o1x$,׭_EY-bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1 1N~ 0D 0 cE') 1u 72QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQbYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 0aaaa BLL 0i D3  D-@ 0Kmm AS  0 0Du A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    lf+ J~'83|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.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(#$  0  (;3$2#  0  .3  0    R$      1  L  _The AgreedOrdersettingforththedispositivequestionoflawwasneitherreferredtonorincorporatedby  referenceinthejudgmentofconvictionform.Itissufficientforthejudgmentordertorefertoorincorporateanother t independentdocumenttosatisfytherequirementthatthejudgmentcontainastatementofthedispositivecertified 8 questionoflaw.Statev.Irwin,962S.W.2d477,479(Tenn.1998);Statev._Pendergrass_,937S.W.2d834,837(Tenn. L 1996).  R$      2  L  _TheauthorofthisopinionrespectfullydissentedfromthiscourtsopinioninHarris,findingthecertified  questiontoobroadtocomportwiththerequirementsofPreston.SeeHarris,919S.W.2dat625(Hayes,J.,dissenting).3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i) - -(|G2$ !.8:dd8         0  L d(|3q$ !.8:dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3q$ !.8:dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8:dd8     _   :8t8XXdd8@tt6e:INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#:6e #Ԉ &    @  @` September18,2001Session L Xt8X: #:XXt8#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.NICHOLASJ.JOHNSONXt8X:  J @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWilliamsonCounty  J @@No.II1199374TimothyL.Easter,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200003162CCAR3CDFiledNovember6,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      Xt8XXXt8TheAppellant,NicholasJ.Johnson,presentsforreviewacertifiedquestionoflaw.Johnsonpled x  guiltytotwocountsofpossessionofScheduleIdrugsforresale,onecountofpossessionof d ScheduleIVdrugsforresale,andsimplepossession.Johnsonreceivedaneffectiveten(10)year P CommunityCorrectionssentence,andwasorderedtoserveonehundredandfifty(150)days,day < forday, intheWilliamsonCountyWorkhouse.Aspartofhisplea,Johnsonexplicitlyreserved, (x withtheconsentofthetrialcourtandtheState,acertifiedquestionoflawchallengingthetrial d courtsdenialofhismotiontosuppress.Afterreview,wefindthatthequestionwasnotproperly P certifiedbecauseitfailstoclearlyidentifythescopeandlimitsofthelegalissuereserved. < Accordingly,theappealisdismissed. #Xt8XX Xt8##:XXt8#Xt8X: (  Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealDismissed.     #:Xt8 #Xt8X.:DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._,andJerry  L.Smith,J.,joined. t GlennR.Funk,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,NicholasJ.Johnson. L  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;ThomasE. $"t! Williams,III,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;RonaldL.Davis,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andSharon #`" _Guffee_,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. #L# #:XXt8 #Xt8X: @@OO& OPINION &"&  #:XXt8 #Xt8X: FactualBackground  (#( #:XXt85 #  Xt8X: Xt8XXXt8  OnNovember8,1999,theAppellantwasindictedbytheWilliamsonCountyGrandJuryfor p*%* twocountsofpossessionofScheduleIdrugsforresale,onecountofpossessionofScheduleIV \+&+ drugsforresale,simplepossession,possessionofdrugparaphernalia,drivingonarevokedlicense, H,', anddrivingonarevokedlicenserevokedforDrivingUndertheInfluence.OnDecember22,1999, 4-(- _theAppellantfiledamotiontosuppressevidenceseizedduringthesearchofhisvehicle,challenging  theconstitutionalityofthestopandresultingsearch.Themotionwasdenied.    Thereafter,onMay15,2000,theAppellantenteredintoanegotiatedpleaagreementunder t Rule11(e)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure,inwhichhepledguiltytotwocountsof ` possessionofdrugs,ScheduleI,forresale;onecountofpossessionofdrugs,ScheduleIV,forresale; L  andsimplepossession.Thepleawasacceptedbythetrialcourt. 8    Aspartofhisplea,theAppellant,pursuanttoRule37(b)(2)(i)oftheTennesseeRulesof  ` CriminalProcedure,explicitlyreservedtherighttoappealacertifiedquestionoflawdispositiveof  L  thecase.TherespectivejudgmentofconvictionformsenteredonMay15,2000,containedthe  8  followingnotationwithinthespecialconditionssection, thedefendantreservesrighttoappeal $  courtsrulingonthemotion/suppress.The AgreedOrderwhichwasenteredonMay23,2000,   reservedtherighttoappealthefollowingcertifiedquestionoflaw, thevalidityofthesearchand   seizureofthedefendant. #  1           ANALYSIS p    TheAppellantseeksreview,undertheprovisionsofTenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2)(i),ofthetrial H courtsdenialofhismotiontosuppresstheevidence.TheStatearguesthattheAppellant failed 4 toproperlyreserveacertifiedquestionoflawandthereforethiscourtiswithoutjurisdictiontohear  p theappealorvacatethepleaagreement.  \   UnderRule37(b)(2)(i),anappealliesfromaguiltypleaifthefinalorderorjudgment 4 containsastatementofthedispositivecertifiedquestionoflawreservedbytheAppellant,wherein   thequestionissoclearlystatedastoidentifythescopeandlimitsofthelegalissuesreserved.State   v.Pendergrass,937S.W.2d834,836(Tenn.1996)#Xt8XX Xt8 # Xt8XXXt8;Statev.Preston,759S.W.2d647,650(Tenn.  1988).Noissuebeyondthescopeofthecertifiedquestionwillbeconsidered.Statev.Irwin,962  S.W.2d.477,479(Tenn.1998)(quotingPreston,759S.W.2dat650).Beforeacourtmayaccept  anappealmadepursuanttoRule37(b)(2)(i),thefollowingprerequisitesmustbesatisfied: l    `     h      p  (5h83"3"  8  325h  1  .3  0`     Thefinalorderorjudgmentmustcontainastatementofthedispositive D! questionoflawreservedbythe[Appellant]forappellatereview.3݌0" ` `  Ќ  "3"  8  325h  2  .3  0`     Theordermuststatethatthecertifiedquestionwasexpresslyreservedaspart #l! ofthepleaagreement.37݌$X"` `  Ќ  "3"  8  3U25h  3  .3  0`     TheordermuststatethatboththeStateandthetrialjudgehaveconsentedto $D # thereservationandareoftheopinionthatthequestionisdispositiveofthe %0!$ case.3U݌&"%` `  Ќ  "3"  8  3 25h  4  .3  0`     Thequestionoflawmustbestatedsoastoclearlyidentifythescopeandthe  limitsofthelegalissuereserved.3 6!݌` `  Ќ  Preston,759S.W.2dat650. t 8        Weconcludethatthecertifiedquestionisnotsoclearlystatedastoidentifythescopeand L  limitsofthelegalissuesreserved.TheAppellantbearstheburdenof reserving,articulating,and 8  identifyingtheissue.Pendergrass,937S.W.2dat838. $ t 8  Wherequestionsoflawinvolvethevalidityofsearchesandtheadmissibilityof  L  statementsandconfessions,etc.,thereasonsrelieduponbythe[Appellant]inthe  8  trialcourtatthesuppressionhearingmustbeidentifiedinthestatementofthe $  certifiedquestionoflawandreviewbytheappellatecourtswillbelimitedtothose   passeduponbythetrialjudgeandstatedinthecertifiedquestion,absenta   constitutionalstatementotherwise.Withoutanexplicitstatementofthecertified   question,neitherthe[Appellant],theStatenorthetrialjudgecanmakeameaningful   determinationofwhethertheissuesoughttobereviewedisdispositiveofthecase.p   ̀Preston,759S.W.2dat650(emphasisadded). H   Inthepresentcase,theissuereservedis thevalidityofthesearchandseizureofthe  p Appellant.ThisoverlybroadquestionviolatesthemandatesannouncedinPreston.Thequestion  \ isnotonlypatentlynonspecificbutalsodoesnotclearlyidentifythereasonsrelieduponbythe H Appellantatthesuppressionhearing.Additionally,reviewofthequestionaspresentlyframed 4 wouldpotentiallyrequireacompletedissertationofthelawofsearchandseizureofwhichthiscourt   isnotwillingtoengageinabsentspecificboundariescircumscribedbytheAppellant.Theholding   ofPrestoncreatedabrightlineruleregardingtheprerequisitesforaRule37(b)(2)(i)appealfrom  whichthiscourtmaynotdepart.SeegenerallyPreston,759S.W.2dat650;butseeStatev.Harris,  919S.W.2d619,621(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)(issueneednotbeframedinstandard lawschool  format;statementsatisfiesPrestonifappellatecourtcanascertainfromtherecordthescopeofthe l issuepresented). #  2      ׀ X    WearewithoutjurisdictiontoreviewthemeritsoftheAppellantsclaimbecausehehas 0"  failedtoproperlyreservehiscertifiedquestionoflawbyidentifyingthescopeandlimitsofthelegal #l! issueraised.Accordingly,theappealisdismissed.InStatev.Cheek,No.M200000203CCAR3 $X" CD(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Dec.14,2000),thiscourtwentfurtherandvacatedtheguilty $D # pleasandthepleaagreementandremandedthecasetothetrialcourt.Uponrevisitation,wefind %0!$ thatthiscourtlackstheauthoritytovacatethepleasandtheagreementbecausewearewithout &"% jurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterduetononcompliancewithRule37(b)(2)(i).Itiswell '#& establishedthat [a][c]ourtactingwithoutjurisdictionofthesubjectmatter,orbeyondthe (#' jurisdictionconferreduponit,isthereforeactingwithoutauthorityoflawanditsjudgmentsand  decreesinsoactingarevoidandbindnoone.Brownv.Brown,281S.W.2d492,501(Tenn.1995)  (citingSheffyv.Mitchell,215S.W.2d403,404(Tenn.1919));seealsoPendergrass,937S.W.2d  at837#Xt8XX Xt8# Xt8XXXt8;NewRiverLumberCo.v.Tenn.Ry.Co.,210S.W.639,640(Tenn.1919);Bd.ofDirs.of t St.FrancisLeveeDist.v.BodkinBros.,69S.W.270,273(Tenn.1902);Bakerv.Mitchell,59S. ` W.137,138(Tenn.1900)#Xt8XX Xt82# Xt8XXXt8. L     CONCLUSION   ` 4  BecauseoftheAppellantsfailuretoproperlyframehiscertifiedquestionoflaw,thiscourt  <  isunabletoreachthemeritsoftheAppellantsclaimasthiscourthasnojurisdictiontoentertainthis (  appeal.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2)(i).Accordingly,theappealisdismissed.#Xt8XX Xt83#      `     h     ___________________________________ L    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE