ÿWPC.# _gš•n?$;öXHº‚S(Ï®|¶Mz.Ze–½NÎs:&ض ÊOuìd«y1±\ðä¿#¥&ÌUŸ°qÌg¦IV·2ßʰN»k¢qq¤Ò…+­VÝÞØÛ+œgÕÑ0ᯰ%´vÍ¡“ÌÅušn/øö½Õ€Ü¦e9fI‹2²¿àC®N¢ŒåÓšú›Âh‚§¸å®ùyûˆRgóÆŠ-ôü:ulJh‰Ëx»¹†vȸ ÚI¼Ýàä/ë~ŸÏÉÀy’IotÉÿí5!G²ƒ?ÇÍÈPÓÔëÍÉ-#™$3äd7Çã?¤˜ïŒ'¤\Úьª‹—¦ÕI™)ŸÀIt¦ÏD[idïiOp=©_öߢ¡Á7·—Ð&­a4Ça¬ÒÃPl lIwO€Æµ°¥~g‹¶«¦øÞj&¼5ÇŒŸ‹¡º¹"HB’”¥*åÕá-¤£Þ|9½Ð>{"1T;&¼zG/ ny¥€G|ÚÖZ¾ìE7¿Åwt6¿¿Ltü`zõÝ’kÊS餭ðzÂý¢åºë=|JáúiE.¦T¥+ùbŽz,d)F.v°• ‚ÄŽ¸_ÎÈ3Mõœ9¬D9¥¢¸Ì½RKSTÔâȆ˦Å4Ïr«‘ý![oaøº+b %\U@b 0ˆ¢UN*^ xw„4ˆ zœÒ è ÷ mù #Á ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#¾éN§ 0D©¦íE“ 0w•  1 72¡ 1uÓ 72H 0cz 0ŠÝÝÝÊgò111111111111b#################################### 0ë++++ B 0¤3 D3× D- 0K7 7 AS‚ ÆÕ 0¤›! 0D?" A«ƒ"»(ÆúI Z‹(Times New Roman (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularým1+â Yo†)- JGROPINIO ˜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.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ´Ý ƒR—Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOn€July€27,€2000,€the€motion€was€discussed€at€an€in„chambers€conference€at€which€time€defense€counsel€notedÐ ° Ðthat€the€motion€had€been€pending€during€the€entire€probationary€period€but€had€been€continued€on€previous€occasionsÐ tÄ Ðfor€various€reasons.€€€€Ð 8ˆ ÐÌ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó œÝ ƒR—Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔFed.€R.€Cr.€P.€35€has€since€been€amended€several€times€and€presently€has€no€provision€authorizing€a€defendantÐ ° Ðto€seek€reduction€of€a€sentence€except€for€ð ðarithmetical,€technical,€or€other€clear€error.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Fed.€R.€Cr.€P.€35€(2001).€Ð tÄ Ð(Oé;$µµà0  àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0` (#(#à 0¦ÙCEMU]emu}AutoList1(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)(1)3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)(;3£$´´Ô2#ÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0  à(b·¤$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2#ÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à ÀÝ ƒR—Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔOur€supreme€court€has€never€ruled€on€this€specific€issue,€although€it€denied€permission€to€appeal€in€òòBiggsóó.€Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€April€3,€1989).€€As€Ô_Ôwill€beÔ_Ô€apparent€subsequently€in€this€opinion,€dual€jurisdictional€consideration€of€the€sameÐ tÄ Ðissue€creates€some€very€unique€problems.€€òòSee€generallyóó,€òòState€v.€Bilbreyóó,€816€S.W.2d€71,€75€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€Ð 8ˆ ÐWe€doubt€that€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€35€was€intended€as€a€vehicle€to€rehear€in€the€trial€court€that€which€was€specificallyÐ üL Ðconsidered€and€denied,€while€an€appeal€of€that€same€issue€is€pending.€€Ordinarily,€the€appropriate€remedy€would€simplyÐ À Ðbe€an€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€òòÔ_ÔPendergrassÔ_Ôóó,€937€S.W.2d€at€837.€€Nevertheless,€we€will€follow€the€published€òòBiggsóó€holding€forÐ „Ô Ðpurposes€of€this€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Sup.€Ct.€R.€4(H)(2)€(providing€that€opinions€in€the€official€reporter€are€consideredÐ H ˜ Ðcontrolling€authority).€€ èÝ ƒR—Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Mò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€recognize€Ô_ÔdefendantÔ_Ô€has€been€placed€in€a€procedural€dilemma€to€the€extent€that€he€timely€requested€RuleÐ ° Ð35€relief,€eventually€secured€an€order€for€judicial€diversion,€dismissed€his€original€appeal,€and€has€now€had€the€order€ofÐ tÄ Ðjudicial€diversion€set€aside€by€this€court.€€We€also€note€our€rulings€regarding€Rule€35€are€matters€of€first€impression€inÐ 8ˆ Ðthis€state.€€Although€we€in€no€way€are€indicating€whether€this€court€would€entertain€a€late„filed€notice€of€appeal€from€theÐ üL Ðoriginal€denial€of€Ô_Ôjudicial€diversionÔ_Ô,€such€a€request€is€not€prohibited€by€our€ruling€in€the€present€appeal.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.Ð À ÐApp.€P.€4(a)€(stating€that€timely€filing€of€notice€of€appeal€is€not€jurisdictional€but€may€be€waived).€€- ù-(|G2—Y$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô¿Mò»»Ô d(|3a$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3a$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€5»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼5»»»ÔÑ8€T)XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼5»»¼5Ôà@ttìàÔ‡îÊÕ5ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@õõ%ìàAT€JACKSONÔ#†¼5»îîÊÕ;#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€7,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XT)X»¼5ÔÌò òÔ#†¼5»XXT))#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEòòóó€v.€MARCUS€J.€Ô_ÔTURCOÔ_ÔÔ‡XT)X»¼5Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Shelby€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€I98„00168€€€€€€John€P.€Ô_ÔColtonÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€W2001„01085„CCA„R3„CD€Ô_Ô„Ô_Ô€Filed€September€14,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€is€an€appeal€by€the€State€of€Tennessee€from€an€order€granting€the€defendant€judicial€diversionÐ xÈ  Ðfor€the€offense€of€sexual€battery.€€This€order€was€the€result€of€a€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€35€motion€toÐ d´ Ðreduce€a€previously€ordered€sentence€of€one€year€in€the€county€jail€with€all€time€suspended€andÐ P  Ðsupervised€probation€for€one€year.€€Although€the€Tenn.€R.€Ô_ÔCrimÔ_Ô.€P.€35€motion€was€timely€filed,€theÐ <Œ Ðtrial€court€did€not€act€upon€the€motion€until€after€the€original€probated€sentence€had€been€fully€servedÐ (x Ðand€expired.€€Two€issues€of€first€impression€are€presented€in€this€appeal.€€We€conclude€that€(1)Ð d Ðjudicial€diversion€is€not€a€ð ðsentenceðð€and,€therefore,€may€not€be€granted€as€Rule€35€relief;€and€(2)Ð P Ða€trial€court€may€not€modify€a€sentence€under€Rule€35€after€the€sentence€has€been€fully€served€andÐ ì< Ðexpired.€€Accordingly,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Ð Ø( ÐÓ(ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed;Ð ° ÐRemandedó óÐ œì ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼5»àXT)º#ÔÔ‡XT)X.¼5ÔJoe€G.€Riley,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€whichòòóó€òòAlan€E.€Glennóó,€òòJ.,óó€joined.€€òòDavid€G.Ð tÄ ÐHayesóóÔ#†¼5»XXT)Y #ÔÔ‡XT)X»¼5Ô,€J.,€filed€a€concurring€opinion.€€Ð `° ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Kim€R.€Helper,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð 8!ˆ  ÐWilliam€L.€Gibbons,€District€Attorney€General;€and€Paul€Thomas€Hoover,€Jr.,€Assistant€DistrictÐ $"t! ÐAttorney€General,€for€the€appellant,€State€of€Tennessee.€€Ð #`" ÐÌIrvin€M.€Ô_ÔSalkyÔ_Ô€(at€hearing€and€on€appeal)€and€Stephen€I.€Cohen€(at€hearing),€Memphis,€Tennessee,Ð è$8 $ Ðfor€the€appellee,€Marcus€J.€Ô_ÔTurcoÔ_Ô.Ð Ô%$!% ÐÌÓ* ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼5»XXT)3 #ÔÔ‡XT)X»¼5ÔÐ ˜(è#( ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼5»XXT)ë #ÔÔ‡XT)X»¼5ÔÓ  Óà  àOn€April€23,€1999,€defendant€entered€a€plea€of€guilty€to€the€offense€of€sexual€battery€withÐ p*À%* Ðthe€understanding€that€the€trial€court€would€either€place€the€defendant€on€judicial€diversion€orÐ \+¬&+ Ðotherwise€determine€the€appropriate€sentence.€€After€a€sentencing€hearing,€the€trial€court€enteredÐ H,˜', Ðextensive€written€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€denying€judicial€diversion€and€imposingÐ 4-„(-ýC ÐÔ_Ôa€one„year€suspended€sentence.€€An€order€of€probation€was€entered€June€28,€1999,€at€which€time€theÐ ° Ðdefendant€formally€began€serving€his€time€on€probation.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àOn€July€27,€1999,€defendant€filed€a€notice€of€appeal.€€On€the€same€date,€defendant€filed€inÐ tÄ Ðthe€trial€court€a€ð ðMOTION€FOR€NEW€TRIAL/HEARING,€TO€RECONSIDER€JUDGMENT€ANDÐ `° ÐTO€CORRECT€OR€REDUCE€SENTENCE.ðð€€Defendantððs€motion€was€not€heard€in€the€trial€courtÐ L œ Ðprior€to€the€expiration€of€defendantððs€probation€in€June€2000.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ‡XT)XXXT)ÔÔ#†¼5»XXT)I#ÔÔ‡ô¿Mò»¼5Ôà  àÔ#†¼5»òô¿Mh#ÔÔ‡XT)X»¼5ÔThe€motion€was€considered€by€the€trial€court€on€November€30,€2000,€five€months€after€theÐ  ` Ðpreviously€imposed€sentence€had€been€fully€served,€at€which€time€the€trial€court€agreed€to€theÐ ü L  Ðdefendantððs€request€for€judicial€diversion.€€Ô#†XT)XXXT)&#ÔOn€December€8,€2000,€an€order€was€entered€placing€theÐ è 8  Ðdefendant€ð ðon€Judicial€Diversion€for€a€period€of€one€year,€upon€the€condition€that€Petitioner€receiveÐ Ô$  Ðcounseling€from€Dr.€John€V.€Ciocca€on€a€regular€basis€during€this€one€year€period.ðð€€The€order€didÐ À  Ðnot€indicate€the€effect,€if€any,€of€the€one€year€of€supervised€probation€already€completed.€€The€stateÐ ¬ü  Ðtimely€filed€notice€of€appeal€on€December€19,€2000.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àOn€January€12,€2001,€defendant€filed€a€motion€to€withdraw€his€notice€of€appeal.€€The€motionÐ pÀ Ðwas€granted€by€this€court€on€January€29,€2001.€€Ð \¬ ÐÌÌà@NN ìàò òJURISDICTIONAL€ISSUEó óˆÐ  p ÐÌà  àGenerally,€a€trial€courtððs€judgment€becomes€final€thirty€days€after€its€entry€unless€a€timelyÐ øH Ðnotice€of€appeal€or€a€specified€post„trial€motion€is€filed.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(a)€and€(c);€òòState€v.Ð ä4 ÐMooreóó,€814€S.W.2d€381,€382€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991).€€The€jurisdiction€of€the€appellate€courtÐ Ð  Ðattaches€upon€the€filing€of€a€notice€of€appeal;€therefore,€the€trial€court€loses€jurisdiction€and€has€noÐ ¼  Ðpower€to€modify€or€amend€the€judgment€after€the€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal.€€òòState€v.€Pendergrassóó,Ð ¨ø Ð937€S.W.2d€834,€837€(Tenn.€1996).€€Defendant€filed€a€notice€of€appeal€on€July€27,€1999;€therefore,Ð ”ä Ðthe€filing€of€the€notice€of€appeal€would€ordinarily€divest€the€trial€court€of€any€further€jurisdiction€toÐ €Ð Ðmodify€the€judgment€of€conviction.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àHowever,€defendant€simultaneously€filed€with€the€notice€of€appeal€a€Tenn€R.€Crim.€P.€35Ð D!” Ðmotion€for€a€reduction€of€sentence.€€This€court€has€determined€that€the€filing€of€a€notice€of€appealÐ 0"€  Ðâ âdoes€not€divest€the€trial€court€of€jurisdiction€to€hear€a€timely€filed€Rule€35€motion.€€òòState€v.€Biggsóó,Ð #l! Ð769€S.W.2d€506,€509€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).׃!×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Thus,€we€conclude€the€trial€court€retainedÐ ° Ðâ âjurisdiction€to€consider€the€motion€since€the€request€was€timely€made€within€120€days€after€theÐ œì Ðjudgment€was€entered;€however,€the€trial€court€had€no€jurisdiction€to€modify€the€sentence€other€thanÐ ˆØ Ðpursuant€to€Rule€35.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌÌà@† † ìàò òJUDICIAL€DIVERSION€AS€A€REDUCTION€IN€SENTENCEˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àó óThe€state€contends€Rule€35€does€not€authorize€a€modification€of€a€judgment€of€convictionÐ  ` Ðto€judicial€diversion.€€This€presents€an€issue€of€first€impression.€€The€stateððs€argument€is€persuasive.€Ð ü L  ÐWhile€judicial€diversion€has€been€loosely€referred€to€in€cases€as€a€ð ðmanner€of€serviceðð€of€a€sentence,Ð è 8  Ðit€is€fundamentally€different.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó.,€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,€953€S.W.2d€701,€702€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð Ô$  Ð1996)€(referring€to€the€ð ðmanner€of€service€of€the€sentence,€including€the€availability€of€judicialÐ À  Ðdiversionðð).€€Judicial€diversion€is€not€listed€as€a€ð ðsentencing€alternativeðð€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÐ ¬ü  Ð40„35„104.€€Although€judicial€diversion€follows€a€finding€of€guilt€or€plea€of€guilty,€a€person€placedÐ ˜è  Ðon€judicial€diversion€is€not€sentenced€for€the€crime;€instead,€no€judgment€of€conviction€is€entered.€Ð „Ô  ÐòòSee€óóòòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€15€S.W.3d€515,€517€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1999).€€Upon€the€granting€of€judicialÐ pÀ Ðdiversion,€all€further€proceedings€are€deferred€with€the€person€placed€on€probation.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð \¬ Ððð€40„35„313(a)(1)(A).€€If€the€person€satisfactorily€completes€the€period€of€probation,€he€or€she€isÐ H˜ Ðdischarged,€the€case€dismissed,€and€all€records€expunged.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(a)(2)€andÐ 4„ Ð(b).€€If€the€person€violates€probation,€judicial€diversion€may€be€revoked€and€a€sentence€imposed.€Ð  p ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„313(a)(2);€òòJohnsonóó,€15€S.W.3d€at€518.€€Ð  \ ÐÌà  àThe€Committee€Comments€to€Rule€35€òòóóprovide€that€the€ð ðmodification€permitted€by€this€ruleÐ ä4 Ðis€any€modification€otherwise€permitted€by€the€law€when€the€judge€originally€imposed€sentenceÐ Ð  Ðincluding€but€not€limited€to€a€transfer€to€the€workhouse€or€probation€to€otherwise€eligibleÐ ¼  Ðdefendants.ðð€€Nevertheless,€Rule€35€expressly€provides€that€the€ð ðmodification€can€only€be€as€to€anyÐ ¨ø Ðsentence€that€the€court€could€have€originally€imposed.ðð€€We€conclude€that€judicial€diversion€is€not€Ð ”ä Ða€ð ðsentenceðð€and€is€not€authorized€by€Rule€35.€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àWe€reject€defendantððs€contention€that€our€òòBiggsóó€ruling€authorized€a€sentence€reduction€toÐ X ¨ Ðjudicial€diversion.€òò€Seeóó€769€S.W.2d€at€509.€€òòBiggsóó€concerned€a€request€for€reduction€to€a€sentenceÐ D!” Ðwith€probation,€not€judicial€diversion.€òò€Idóó.€€Likewise,€we€reject€defendantððs€contention€that€our€recentÐ 0"€  Ðcase€of€òòState€v.€Hollie€D.€Campbellóó,€C.C.A.€No.€E2000„00373„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€739240Ð #l! Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€filed€July€2,€2001,€at€Knoxville),€recognized€judicial€diversion€as€a€ð ðsentence.ðð€Ð $X" ÐThe€issue€in€òòCampbellóó€related€to€the€length€of€sentence€that€could€be€imposed€upon€revocation€ofÐ ° Ðjudicial€diversion.€€Our€court€specifically€recognized€that€ð ðthe€very€issuance€of€judicial€diversion€isÐ œì Ðto€defer€not€only€the€entry€of€the€judgment,€but€any€òòsentenceóó€at€that€time.ðð€€òòCampbellóó,€2001€WLÐ ˆØ Ð739240,€at€*2€(emphasis€added).€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àFor€these€reasons,€the€trial€court€was€without€authority€to€grant€judicial€diversion€as€a€formÐ L œ Ðof€relief€under€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€35.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÌà@R R ìàò òREDUCTION€AFTER€SENTENCE€EXPIRATIONó óˆÐ ü L  ÐÌà  àEven€assuming€the€trial€court€had€authority€to€grant€judicial€diversion€under€Rule€35,€thatÐ Ô$  Ðwould€not€necessarily€resolve€this€appeal.€€The€state€argues€that€the€trial€court€may€not€grant€a€RuleÐ À  Ð35€modification€after€the€sentence€has€been€fully€served€and€expired.€€This€too€is€an€issue€of€firstÐ ¬ü  Ðimpression.€€In€order€to€resolve€this€issue,€an€analysis€of€Rule€35€is€necessary.€€Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àRule€35€was€not€a€part€of€our€original€Rules€of€Criminal€Procedure,€but€was€added€in€1984.€Ð pÀ ÐAlthough€somewhat€similar€at€the€time€to€its€federal€counterpart,€Fed.€R.€Cr.€P.€35,€it€is€far€moreÐ \¬ Ðlimited.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€35€Committee€Comments.€€Rule€35€provides€extraordinary€relief,Ð H˜ Ðdoes€not€authorize€the€stay€of€the€sentence€originally€imposed,€and€does€not€entitle€a€defendant€toÐ 4„ Ðbail€pending€an€appeal€of€an€adverse€decision.€€òòSeeóó€Committee€Comments.€€Although€not€expresslyÐ  p Ðstated,€it€is€implicit€that€prompt€action€upon€a€Rule€35€request€is€necessary€in€order€for€the€defendantÐ  \ Ðor€the€state€to€seek€meaningful€appellate€relief.€€€Ð øH ÐÌà  àUnder€defendantððs€theory,€a€timely€filed€Rule€35€motion€tolls€the€finality€of€a€judgment€inÐ Ð  Ðthe€trial€court€until€the€trial€court€rules,€even€months€or€years€after€the€sentence€has€been€fully€served.€Ð ¼  ÐòòóóUnder€this€theory,€even€if€the€appellate€court€affirmed€the€denial€of€judicial€diversion,€the€pendingÐ ¨ø ÐRule€35€motion€in€the€trial€court€would€prevent€the€finality€of€the€judgment€and€still€allow€the€trialÐ ”ä Ðcourt€to€subsequently€grant€judicial€diversion.€€This€is€contrary€to€all€principles€of€the€finality€ofÐ €Ð Ðjudgments.€€The€following€scenario€is€possible€under€this€theory:€€Ð l¼ ÐÌÓ€ (¦Ù83Óà8  à(1)à8` Ð Ð àthe€trial€court€denies€judicial€diversion,€sending€the€defendant€to€theÐ D!” Ðstate€penitentiary€for€three€years;Ð0"€ ` x` x ÐÌà8  à(2)à8` Ð Ð àthat€denial€is€appealed;€€Ð$X"` x` x ÐÌà8  à(3)à8` Ð Ð àthe€appellate€court€affirms€the€denial;€€Ðà%0!$` x` x Ðâ âÐ Ì&"% Ðà8  à(4)à8` Ð Ð àafter€the€penitentiary€sentence€has€been€fully€served,€the€trial€courtÐ ° Ðâ âgrants€judicial€diversion€under€a€previously€and€timely€filed€Rule€35Ð œì Ðmotion;€and€€ÐˆØ` x` x ÐÌà8  à(5)à8` Ð Ð àa€further€appeal€is€filed€by€the€state.Ð`°` x` x ÐÌSuch€a€scenario€was€not€contemplated€by€Rule€35€or€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àOur€view€is€supported€by€federal€cases€decided€under€the€previous€version€of€Fed.€R.€Cr.€P.Ð  ` Ð35.€€The€previous€version€of€the€federal€rule€provided€that€the€trial€court€could€ð ðreduce€a€sentenceÐ ü L  Ðwithin€€120€days€after€the€sentence€was€imposed.€.€.€.ðð€€Fed.€R.€Cr.€P.€35(b)(1979).€€Under€the€literalÐ è 8  Ðlanguage€of€the€rule,€it€would€appear€the€federal€trial€court€could€not€act€upon€a€timely€filed€motionÐ Ô$  Ðbeyond€the€120€day€time€period.€€However,€most€federal€courts€interpreted€the€rule€to€allow€the€trialÐ À  Ðcourt€to€retain€jurisdiction€for€a€reasonable€period€of€time€to€act€upon€the€motion.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€StatesÐ ¬ü  Ðv.€DeMieróó,€671€F.2d€1200€(8òòthóó€Cir.€1982);€òòUnited€States€v.€Mendozaóó,€581€F.2d€89€(5òòthóó€Cir.€1978);Ð ˜è  ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Stollingsóó,€516€F.2d€1287€(4òòthóó€Cir.€1975).€€Although€no€fixed€time€limit€dictatedÐ „Ô  Ðwhether€the€federal€trial€court€had€acted€within€a€reasonable€time€in€ruling€upon€a€motion€forÐ pÀ Ðreduction,€reasonableness€was€ð ðevaluated€in€light€of€the€policies€supporting€the€time€limitation€andÐ \¬ Ðthe€reasons€for€the€delay€in€each€case.ðð€€òòUnited€States€v.€Smithóó,€650€F.2d€206,€209€(9òòthóó€Cir.€1981).€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWe€conclude€that€a€ruling€upon€a€timely€Rule€35€motion€should€be€made€within€a€reasonableÐ  p Ðperiod€of€time.€€We€further€conclude€that,€at€the€very€least,€the€trial€court€loses€jurisdiction€toÐ  \ Ðconsider€a€Rule€35€motion€once€the€previously€imposed€sentence€has€been€fully€served€and€expired.€Ð øH ÐÌÌà@FF%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àFor€the€above€reasons,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€The€case€is€remanded€forÐ ”ä Ðentry€of€a€judgment€of€conviction€consistent€with€that€which€had€previously€been€entered.€€TheÐ €Ð Ðjudgment€should€note€that€the€sentence€has€been€fully€served.׃"×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð l¼ ÐÌÌÔ#†¼5»XXT)¶#ÔÔ€XT)X»¼5ÔÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àJOE€G.€RILEY,€JUDGE