WPC TfH}N77pmp2MD5_`2  AV) ` dE<` A    FollowingaconvictionforDUI,thirdoffense,afterenteringaguiltyplea,DefendantJamesH.   Thompsonappeals,assertingthathehaspresentedacertifiedquestionoflawforreview.Because   weconcludethatthequestionoflaw,evenifproperlyreservedattheguiltypleahearing,isnot  _dispositive_Ԁofthecase,wedismisstheappeal. u @v v  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;AppealDismissed  G ThomasT.Woodall,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandAlanE. j Glenn,JJ.,joined. S RobertS.Peters,Winchester,Tennessee,fortheappellant,JamesH.Thompson. % PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;HelenaWaltonYarbrough;AssistantAttorney  General;JamesMichaelTaylor,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;StevenM._Blount_,AssistantDistrict  AttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,theStateofTennessee. y @55' OPINION  K    Theproceduralhistoryofthiscasefollowsacircuitouspathwhichendsatthequagmireof "n! criminaljurisprudenceinTennessee!theinappropriateutilizationofTenn.R.Crim.P.37(b)(2)(_i_), #W" appealfromaguiltyplea,reservingacertifiedquestionoflaw.Aspertinenttothiscase,Defendant #@# wasindictedbytheFranklinCountyGrandJuryfortheoffenseofDUI,thirdoffense.Subsequently, $) $ Defendantfileda MotiontoDismissIndictmentforProsecutionofSecondorSubsequent %!% Offender.Extremelyimportanttothedispositionofthisappeal,themotion,asdesignated,asked &!& onlythatprosecutionofDefendant asasecondorsubsequentoffenderbedismissed andthatthe '"' defendantbeprosecutedonlyasafirstoffender .[Emphasisadded].Inthismotion,Defendant (#( arguedthathewasentitledtotherequestedreliefbecausetheStatefailedtoprovidehimwithacopy l)$) oftheDepartmentofSafetyprintoutofhispriorDUIconvictionsathisarraignment,in U*%* contraventionoftherequirementofTenn.CodeAnn.5510403(g)(3)(ii).Inanorderentered >+&+ August30,2001,thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion. ',w',  -`(-   OnFebruary8,2002,a PleaofGuiltyandAcknowledgmentandWaiverofRightswas  filedinthetrialcourt.ThedocumentreflectsthatDefendantwasagreeingtopleadguiltyto_DUI_,  thirdoffense,withoutanyagreementastosentencing.Theguiltypleadocumentwassignedby  Defendant,hiscounsel,theprosecutor,andthetrialjudge. k   Thepresentence investigationreportwasfiledwiththetrialcourtonApril19,2002.In =  thatdocument,thecasesstatuswasrepresentedasan openpleaofguiltyto_DUI_,thirdoffense, & v withasentencinghearingsetforApril29,2002.Ajudgmentofconvictionwasfiledinthiscase  _ onApril29,2002.ThejudgmentreflectsthatDefendantenteredaguiltypleatothechargeof_DUI_,  H thirdoffense,onFebruary8,2002.Hewasfined$1,100.00,andwassentencedtoserveeleven  1  monthsandtwentyninedays,withallbut220dayssuspended,andhisdrivingprivilegeswere    revokedforthreeyears.Thereisnomentionofreservationofacertifiedquestionoflawforappeal   inthejudgment.Whilethefineandtheperiodofrevocationofdrivingprivilegesarethestatutory   minimumsfor_DUI_,thirdoffense,theperiodofincarcerationpriortoimpositionofasuspended   sentenceis100daysinexcessoftheminimumfora_DUI_,thirdoffenseconviction.Addedtothe n  judgmentisaprovisionthatDefendantsreportdatetojailwasstayeduntilMay30,2002, tosee W  if[a]propermotionfor[_n]ew_Ԁ[_t]rial_Ԁisfiled. @   OnMay24,2002,Defendantfileda MotionforNewTrialorforReductionofSentence. b Themotiondidnotmakeanyreferencetoreservationofacertifiedquestionoflawinanappeal. K Thegroundsforthemotionwerethat(1)sentencingDefendantasamultiple_DUI_Ԁoffenderwas 4 inappropriatebecausetheStatefailedtocomplywith5510403(g)(3)(ii),and(2)impositionof  asentenceincludingincarcerationforaperiodinexcessofthestatutoryminimumisnotconsistent  withthestatutoryprinciplesofsentencing.Defendantsrequestedreliefwasforthetrialcourtto  grantanewtrial,orreduceormodifyhissentence.    OnJuly18,2002,an AmendedJudgmentwasfiledinthiscase.Itwassignedbythetrial Z court,Defendantscounsel,andtheprosecutor,butnotbyDefendant.TheAmendedJudgment C statesinpertinentpart: ,| __   ThejudgmententeredinthiscauseonApril29,2002,shouldbeamended N inorderforthedefendanttobeallowedtoappealpursuanttotheTenn.R._Crim_.  7 P.Rule37and,accordingly,thefollowinglanguageisaddedtothejudgment !   whichwasenteredApril29,2002,andisasfollows: " !  Thedefendantenteredapleaofguiltyassetforthinthejudgmentinthis $# caseasaresultofapleaagreemententeredintounderRule11(e)andthe t% $ defendantexpresslyreservedwiththeconsentoftheStateandoftheCourtthe ]&!% righttoappealacertifiedquestionoflawthatis_dispositive_Ԁofthesentencing F'"& judgmentinthiscaseinrespecttothedefendantbeinga3rd_DUI_Ԁoffender. /(#' Thequestionoflawisreservedinthejudgmentandthescopeandlimitsofthe )h$( legalissuearereservedinthatthedefendantwassentencedasa3rdoffender *Q%) followingthedenialofthedefendantsmotiontodismisstheindictmentfor *:&* prosecutionofasecondorsubsequentoffenderundertheprovisionsof_T.C.A._Ԁ +#'+ 5510403(g)(3)(2)[sic]byreasonofthefactthatthedefendantwasnotgivena  copyoftheDepartmentofSafetyprintoutatthetimeofarraignment,thereby  precludingtheStatefromprosecutingthedefendantasa3rdoffender.   Itisthereby ORDERED thatthejudgmentofconvictionbesoamended T tocontainthelanguagesetforthherein,thatthisamendmentbemadeapartofthe @  judgmententeredinthiscause;thatthecertifiedquestionisexpresslyreserved ) y withtheconsentoftheState;andthatthetrialjudgeandDistrictAttorney  b General,asevidencedbytheirsignaturesbelow,concurandagreethat,astothe  K convictionofthedefendantasa3rdoffender,thiscertifiedquestionis_dispositive_.  4  й  |__  OnJuly25,2002,thetrialcourtenteredanorderoverrulingthemotionfornewtrial.A   noticeofappealwasfiledonAugust14,2002.Inhisbriefonappeal,Defendantasserts,through   hiscounsel,thattheissueonappealispresentedasacertifiedquestionoflawpursuanttoaguilty q  pleawithanagreementtoreservethecertifiedquestionforappeal.Thecertifiedquestion Z  purportedlyreservedforappealissetforthinthe AmendedJudgmentquotedabove.Inhis C appellatebrief,DefendantsrequestedrelieffromthisCourtisforthe judgmentofthetrialcourt ,| [to]bereversed,[and]thatthecaseberemandedto[the]trialcourtforfurtherproceedings e consistentwith[this]Courtsopinion,andthatthe[_D]efendant_Ԁhavegeneralrelief. N   Defendantscertifiedquestionoflawisnot_dispositive_Ԁofthecaseasisrequiredforan   appealpursuanttoTenn.R._Crim_.P.37(b)(2)(_i_).TheoriginalmotionfiledbyDefendantcontested   theStatesrighttoprosecutehimasamultiple_DUI_Ԁoffender,butacknowledgedthattheStatecould  proceedtoprosecutehimfora_DUI_,albeitnotasamultipleoffender.ThisCourtisnotboundby  thedeterminationandagreementofthetrialcourt,adefendant,andtheStatethatacertifiedquestion t oflawis_dispositive_Ԁofthecase.SeeStatev.Oliver,30S.W.3d363,364(Tenn._Crim_.App.2000). ]  Anissueis_dispositive_Ԁwhenthiscourtmusteitheraffirmthejudgmentorreverseanddismiss. F Anissueisnever_dispositive_Ԁwhenwemightreverseandremand....Id.(quotingStatev.Wilkes, / 684S.W.2d663,667(Tenn._Crim_.App.1984).IfwegrantedDefendantthereliefherequests,and h theonlyreliefhewouldbeentitledtoifheiscorrect,(and,incidentally,theonlyreliefauthorized  Q inthecertifiedquestionoflaw),thenwecouldonlyreversethetrialcourtandremandforanew  : sentencinghearingforaconvictionof_DUI_,firstoffense.Dismissaloftheunderlyingchargesof !#  _DUI_Ԁ(whatevernumberofprioroffenses)wouldnotbeappropriate.Therefore,theappealmustbe " ! dismissed.Oliver,30S.W.3dat364. #"   Furthermore,wequestionwhetherthepurportedcertifiedquestionoflawwasproperly w% $ reservedatthetimeoftheguiltyplea.Wehavesetforththeproceduralhistoryfromdocuments `&!% includedinwhatiscommonlyreferredtoasthe technicalrecord.Therearenotranscriptsofany I'"& trialcourtproceedingsincludedintherecordonappeal.Thefirstmentionofanappealofacertified 2(#' questionoflawismentionedinthe AmendedJudgment.Alldocumentsfiledpriortothe )k$(  AmendedJudgmentindicatethatDefendantknowinglyandvoluntarilyenteredaguiltypleato *T%) _DUI_,thirdoffense,withoutanegotiatedagreementastosentencing,withthetrialcourttoimpose *=&* asentence.ImplicitinRule37(b)(2)(_i_)istherequirementthatatthetimetheguiltypleaisentered, +&'+ theState,thedefendant,andthetrialcourtmustallclearlyunderstandthattheguiltypleaisentered  reservingtherighttoappealacertifiedquestionoflaw.Iftranscriptsofproceedingsinthetrial  courthadbeenincludedintherecord,thismightbeclearonappeal.However,wedonothaveto  determinewhetherthequestionoflawwasproperlyreservedsincewehavedeterminedthatitisnot k _dispositive_Ԁofthiscase. T   Eventhoughwearedismissingthisappealforproceduralreasons,intheeventoffurther & v review,wewillbrieflyaddressthemeritsoftheissuepresented.Theidenticalissuewasaddressed  _ bythisCourtinStatev.GaryK._Haddon_,2002Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS485,No.M200102286  H CCAR3CD(Tenn._Crim_.App.,atNashville,June5,2002),permtoapp.denied,Nov.12,2002).  1  Defendantacknowledgesthatcase,andurgesthisCourttoreviewitspriorholdingandoverrule    _Haddon_.     In_Haddon_,thedefendantwaschargedwith_DUI_,secondoffense.HeassertedthattheState   didnotprovidehimwithacopyoftheDepartmentofSafetyprintoutofhispriorconvictionathis n  arraignment,asrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.5510403(g)(3)(ii).Thetrialcourtgrantedthe W  defendantsmotiontodismisshisprosecutionof_DUI_,secondoffense,andorderedtheprosecution @ toproceedfor_DUI_,firstoffense.TheStateappealed,andthisCourtreversedtheorderofthetrial )y courtandremandedthecaseforprosecutionof_DUI_,secondoffense. b   Tenn.CodeAnn.5510403(g)(3)providesasfollows: 4   (_i_)Notwithstandinganyotherruleofevidenceorlawtothecontrary,inthe  prosecutionofsecondorsubsequentoffendersunderthischaptertheofficial  driverrecordmaintainedbythedepartmentandproduceduponacertified  computerprintoutshallconstituteprimafacieevidenceofthepriorconviction. q (ii)Followingindictmentbyagrandjury,thedefendantshallbegivenacopyof C thedepartmentofsafetyprintoutatthetimeofarraignment.Ifthechargeisby ,| warrant,thedefendantisentitledtoacopyofthedepartmentprintoutatthe e defendantsfirstappearanceincourtoratleastfourteen(14)dayspriortoatrial N onthemerits.  7 (iii)Uponmotionproperlymadeinwritingallegingthatone(1)ormoreprior " ! convictionsareinerrorandsettingforththeerror,thecourtmayrequirethata #" certifiedcopyofthejudgmentofconvictionofsuchoffensebeprovidedfor $# inspectionbythecourtastoitsvaliditypriortothedepartmentprintoutbeing t% $ introducedintoevidence. ]&!%  >  >Tenn.CodeAnn.5510403(g)(3)(Supp.2002)(emphasisadded). /(#'   Inthecasesubjudice,Defendantarguesthattheword shallinTenn.CodeAnn.5510 *Q%) 403(g)(3)(ii)is mandatoryandnot directory,andassuch,thefailureoftheStatetocomply *:&* requiresareductioninhisindictedoffensefrom_DUI_,thirdoffense,to_DUI_,firstoffense.TheState +#'+ arguesthat shallis directoryonly,andassuch,dismissalofthemultipleoffendercountofthe  indictmentisnotappropriate.    WereiteratewhatthisCourtheldin_Haddon_inordertomakeitclearastothereliefwhich k is not appropriatewhentheStatefailstoprovideacopyoftheDepartmentofSafetyprintoutofa T priorconviction(s)inamultipleoffender_DUI_Ԁcase: @     RegardlessofwhethertherequirementofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection55  b 10403(g)(3)(ii)is mandatory,or directory,weconcludethatthetrialcourt  K erredbydismissingthatportionoftheindictmentwhichchargesDefendantwith  4  beinga_DUI_Ԁsecondoffender.Noprovisioninthelawjustifiesdismissal!the    reliefrequestedbyDefendantandgrantedbythetrialcourt!andDefendant   requestednootherreliefinthemotion.     *** q    Weconcludethatdismissaloftheportionoftheindictmentcharging C Defendantasa_DUI_Ԁsecondoffenderwasnotanappropriateremedyforthe ,| StatesfailuretoprovideDefendant,athisarraignment,withacomputer e printoutoftheDepartmentofSafetyofficialdriverrecordofDefendant. N  G G_Haddon_,2002Tenn._Crim_.App.LEXIS485,at*4and*9.     Finally,wenoteagain,thereisnotranscriptofthetrialcourtproceedingsregarding  Defendantsmotion.Iftheappealdidnothavetobedismissed,wewouldstillberequiredto  affirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Itistheappellantsresponsibilitytoprovideanadequate t recordforreviewonappeal.SeeTenn.R.App.P.24.Withoutatranscriptofthehearing,we ] arerequiredtopresumethatthetrialcourtsdeterminationoftheissuewascorrect.Statev. F _Oody_,823S.W.2d554,559(Tenn._Crim_.App.1991). /   CONCLUSION  Q     Forthereasonsstatedherein,thisappealisdismissed.Costsaretaxedagainstthe  ; Defendant. !$     `     h   ___________________________________ a&!%    `     h   THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE