WPC \<^h{zgŐku$u]gjH]-q0c` Ռvnp!#mVҼey;'iCR xf20+tNv;( I[>0b;j:+Bn^ׂu]钊ܨ7l;BjY Λo7 v-<7`|CHTȔd1*EH-DtmC(o 멠.Z5/K LITZɚ)-V&,(G0p,7G)GL ב%3 띑0]ՃC(j{dg0KbCskmHA &1I$_D5gxaʶݝ:#%3b#\ % N# 0% UN  z } zO  ^ w  q 74NE mb 0     B 0 D3 D- 0K ASb 0{ 0D AcHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2+ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5J~'X3|xU- -(|G2P$ !.8Ydd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Ydd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Ydd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ydd8     _   Y8 XXdd8@ttN4YINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#YN4 #Ԉ &    @  @` July17,2001Session L X XY #YXX #STATEOFTENNESSEEv.WILLIAMA._TANSIL_X XY  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforWilliamsonCounty  J @@No.II53200TimothyL.Easter,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002940CCAR3CD_Filed_ԀSeptember18,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     Thedefendant,WilliamA._Tansil_,appealsfromhisconvictionfordrivingundertheinfluenceofan x  intoxicant(_DUI_),thirdoffense,forwhichhereceivedasentenceofelevenmonths,twentyninedays, d withallbutonehundredfiftydaysbeingsuspended.Hecontendsthatthetrialcourterredinfinding P himtobeathirdtimeoffender,arguingthatthejudgmentforoneofhispriorconvictionsisvoidon < itsface.Weaffirmthetrialcourt. (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  P   #YX #X X.YJosephM._Tipton_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichGaryR.Wade,_P.J._,andJohn ( EverettWilliams,J.,joined.  JohnS._Colley_,III,Columbia,Tennessee,fortheappellant,WilliamA._Tansil_.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;ThomasE.Williams,III,AssistantAttorney t General;RonaldL.Davis,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andLeeE.Dryer,AssistantDistrictAttorney ` General,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. L  @@OO& OPINION #YXX #X XY $"t! #YXX I #  X XYԀThedefendantpledguiltyto_DUI_Ԁandsubmittedtheissueofpriorconvictionsforsentencing #L# purposestothetrialcourt.Hedidnotcontesttheexistenceofa1997_DUI_Ԁconvictionfrom $8 $ WilliamsonCounty,buthesoughttoexcludea1996convictionfromtheDavidsonCountyGeneral %$!% SessionsCourt.Thedefendantsargumentwasandisthatthefailureofthegeneralsessions &"& judgmenttoreflectthatthedefendantwaivedhisrightagainstselfincriminationandrightto '"' confronthisaccusersrendersthejudgmentfaciallyinvalid. (#(   Initially,thestatequestionsthelegitimacyofthedefendantsrighttoappealbecausehepled p*%* guiltybutdidnotreserveacertifiedquestionoflawforappeal.Weseenoproblem.Thedefendant \+&+  didnotpleadguiltyto_DUI_,thirdoffense,nordidtheissueofsentencinggetwaivedwhenthe H,',2 _defendantpledguiltytotheunderlyingDUIoffense.SeeTenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2)(ii);T.R.A.P.  3(b)(2).     Thestatealsocontendsthatthejudgmentisnotvoidonitsfaceandthatafaciallyvalid t judgmentmaynotbecollaterallyattackedinanotherprosecution.WenotethatinStatev. ` McClintock,732S.W.2d268,27172(Tenn.1987),oursupremecourtstatedthat unlessinvalid L  onitsface,apriorjudgmentofconvictioninacourtwithpersonalandsubjectmatterjurisdiction 8  cannotbecollaterallyattackedinasubsequentproceedinginwhichthechallengedconvictionisused $ t toenhancepunishment.  `     Thedefendantcorrectlystatesthattherightsagainstselfincrimination,toajurytrial,and  8  toconfrontationmustbeknowinglyandvoluntarilywaivedontherecordpursuanttoBoykinv. $  Alabama,395U.S.238,24344,89S.Ct.1709,1712(1969),beforeavalidguiltypleacanbe   entered.However,hearguesthattherightsmustalsoberecordedaswaivedonthejudgmentof   convictionbeforethejudgmentcanbevalid.Thedefendantcitesustonocasesthatholdsucha   view,butherefersustooneofthiscourtscasesthatholdsoppositetohisclaim.     InStatev.JohnW.Buchanan,No.01019411CC00388,FranklinCounty(Tenn.Crim. \ App.Nov.16,1995),aDUIthirdoffensecase,thiscourtwasconfrontedwiththesameclaimasthe H defendants,i.e.,thatthefailureofthepriorjudgmentsofconvictiontoreflectthedefendants 4 waiverofhisrightsagainstselfincriminationandtoconfrontationrenderedthejudgmentsvoid.  p Thiscourtconcludedthatevenifthepriorguiltypleashadbeenimproperlymade,theconvictions  \ wouldonlyhavebeenvoidable,notvoid.Thus,itheldthatMcClintockbarredthedefendants H collateralattackonhispriorconvictions. 4   ThedefendantassertsthatBuchananiswronglydecidedand,asanunpublishedopinion,   constitutesonlypersuasiveauthority,notbindingprecedent.SeeTenn.S.Ct.R.4(H)(1).Although  Buchananisonlypersuasiveauthority,weviewittobecorrect,aswell.Infact,Buchananisbased  uponbindingprecedentfromtheTennesseeSupremeCourt.InStatev.Neal,810S.W.2d131,134  (Tenn.1991),thecourtstatedthatafailuretoadviseadefendantfullyoftherightswaivedbya l guiltyplea merelyrenderstherelatedjudgmentvoidable,notvoid.InArcherv.State,851S.W.2d X  157,16364(Tenn.1993),thecourtheldthataconvictionresultingfromaguiltypleaentered D! withoutaknowingandvoluntarywaiveroftherightagainstselfincriminationwasnotopento 0"  attackthroughahabeascorpusproceedingbecausethelackofaproperwaiveronlyrenderedthe #l! convictionvoidable,notvoid.Itnotedthatapostconvictionproceedingistheproperavenuefor $X" relief.Id. $D #   Inthepresentcase,theDavidsonCountyjudgment,signedbyageneralsessionsjudge, &"% reflectsthatthedefendantwaivedhisrighttocounsel,hisrighttoindictmentorpresentmentbya '#& grandjury,andhisrighttotrialbyajury.Thewrittenwaiveroftherighttocounselisnecessaryfor (#' thefacialvalidityofthejudgmentbecausetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldthatinthe )$( contextofusingapriorconvictionagainstadefendanttosupportguiltorenhancedpunishmentfor |*%) anotheroffense,arecordofaconvictionthatdoesnotshoweithertheexistenceofcounselorthe h+&* waiverofcounselispresumptivelyvoid.SeeBurgettv.Texas,389U.S.109,11415,88S.Ct.258,  26162(1967).Theexpresswaiversofthedefendantsrightstograndjuryreview,toindictmentor  presentment,andtotrialbyjuryconferjurisdictionuponthegeneralsessionscourttodisposeofthe  defendantsmisdemeanorcase.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.401109. t   Regularityofcriminalproceedingsingeneralsessionscourtispresumedwhenitappearson L  thefaceoftheproceedingsthatthecourthadjurisdictionoverthesubjectmatterandtheparties.See 8  McClintock,732S.W.2dat270.Suchisthecasebeforeus.WeconcludethattheDavidsonCounty $ t GeneralSessionsCourtjudgmentisvalidonitsfaceandwasproperlyusedtoenhancethe  ` defendantssentence.Anyattackuponthefaciallyvalidjudgmenthadtobemadeinapost  L  convictionproceeding,notthiscase.  8    Inconsiderationoftheforegoingandtherecordasawhole,thejudgmentofconvictionis   affirmed.      `     h     ___________________________________ \    `     h     JOSEPHM.TIPTON,JUDGE