WPCY PsOe9:U:~49Νl/=a;c0C\S_'a*RKq4\ȊuYA{;Ԩl!C*X]AX^&>+ Ȕ͒VXazW]X},n9GQ ŵ-z,\tq݇T}+oT0d\&Ş@T l^YtI28&'WܽgX(߄&4 PƴFx%&<>36 !ONrAWЌjy'o)U.> %lbrv 0D+on, 0(4U:\w4N *b 0 0D% U:i U: * U:  A U: AQo 0D5 By 0D D/ B  D3&<6X9`(CourierX   $XXXX `   1    InNorthCarolinav.Alford,400U.S.25,91S.Ct.160(1970),theUnited `  StatesSupremeCourtheldthatacriminaldefendantmayenteraguiltypleawithoutadmittingguiltifthedefendantintelligentlyconcludeshisbestinterestswouldbeservedbyapleaofguilty.  $XXXX `   2    Thedefendantelectednottofileareplybriefaddressingthisissue.We `  presumeheopposesdismissalofhisappealonthisbasis.(3$  !  3|xQ<6X9`(CourierXx6X@`7X@($,  AZ"Arial Regular'E()E*+E,-E./E012D3D45D67D89D:;E<=E>?@A9eBӀNQn~<$  !"  XXXX^XX   Ad FILEDXX^   September25,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk (I(2$  !  X9XXX `   0  (#$  0  ,cAZ"Arial Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular  !"  XXXX^XX   Ad FILEDXX^   September24,1998  CecilCrowson,Jr.XXAppellateCourtClerk ,cAZ"Arial Regular  $XXXX `   1    InNorthCarolinav.Alford,400U.S.25,91S.Ct.160(1970),theUnited `  StatesSupremeCourtheldthatacriminaldefendantmayenteraguiltypleawithoutadmittingguiltifthedefendantintelligentlyconcludeshisbestinterestswouldbeservedbyapleaofguilty.,cAZ"Arial Regular !#%C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$  !   d($$   1  ''' dxdP Pd""""'dxd  !  AAAA`   TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T X3XXX7 3 XXdXXd7  ќQQQNNr(<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$` rQNr(<,(j 8` `@Ef ` ttx$` rBBN @ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE P  Qt(>.*jx` `@EqG ` ttx$@ tߛQ̀@(ATJACKSON 0  @BB%JULY1998SESSION    STATEOFTENNESSEE,    ) p   `     h     ) p  `   `  Appellee, h     ) p C.C.A.No.02C019707CC00283 P   `     h     )vs. `     h     ) p LauderdaleCounty x  0   `     h     ) JAMIEWALKER,   h     ) p Hon.JosephH.Walker,Judge  p   `     h     ) `  `  Appellant. h     ) p (StatutoryRapeCertifiedQuestion) P  `     h     FORTHEAPPELLANT: h      p FORTHEAPPELLEE:   CHARLESP.RONEY h      p JOHNKNOXWALKUP   AttorneyatLaw   h      p AttorneyGeneral&Reporter  p P.O.Box542UnionCity,TN382820542     p CLINTONJ.MORGAN  "P  `     h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral `     h      p 425FifthAve.N.,2dFloor  $0   `     h      p Nashville,TN372430493 %   `     h      p ELIZABETHT.RICE  `'    `     h      p DistrictAttorneyGeneral P(!  `     h      p MARKDAVIDSON 0* #  `     h      p Asst.DistrictAttorneyGeneral  +!$  `     h      p P.O.Box562,302MarketSt. `     h      p Somerville,TN38068 OPINIONFILED:________________AFFIRMEDCURWOODWITT,JUDGE  p5,/   `6-09 @qq* OPINION  `   `  Thedefendant,JamieWalker,enteredbestinterestguiltypleasAAAAAA #  1      AAto @  threecountsofstatutoryrapeintheLauderdaleCountyCircuitCourt.Withtheconsentofthestateandthetrialcourt,hereservedthecertifiedquestionofwhetherthetrialcourtcorrectlydeterminedhewascompetenttostandtrial.Thereafter,heperfectedhisappealtothiscourt,andthatcertifiedquestionisnowbeforeusforconsideration.Afterstudyingtherecordandthebriefsoftheparties,wehavedetermined(1)thatthecertifiedquestionisproperlybeforeus,and(2)thetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretioninrulingthedefendantwascompetenttostandtrial.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt. `  Thedefendantisamildlymentallyretardedadult.Aftertheinitiationoftheproceedingsagainsthim,hewasexaminedbytwolicensedpsychologists.AATheAAtrialcourtthenconductedahearingontheissueofcompetency.Thedefenseexpertopinedthatthedefendantwasnotcompetenttostandtrial.Headmittedthedefendantfellintoa"grayarea."Thestate'sexpertopinedthedefendantwascompetent;AAhowever,hetestifiedAA"itwassomewhatborderlineandmarginal[.]"Inanorderfindingspecificfactsrelatedtothedefendant'scompetence,thetrialcourtruled,"[A]lthoughthedefendantismarginallycompetent...heiscompetentsufficienttoaddresstheissueofthechargeagainsthim." `  Afterthecompetencyhearing,thedefendantenteredhisguiltypleassubjecttothecertifiedquestionoftheproprietyofthetrialcourt'sdeterminationofcompetency.Inawelldraftedpleading,thedefendantsetforththecertified 4 +. questionandthecorollaryinformationrequiredbyStatev.Preston,759S.W.2d647 `  (Tenn.1988)andStatev.Pendergrass,937S.W.2d834(Tenn.1996).This @  pleadingAAwasAAincorporatedbyreferenceintheguiltypleadocument,whichnoted,"Defendantreservestherighttoappealthecertifiedissueoflawattachedheretoandagreeduponandconsentedtobythedefendant,trialjudgeandStateofTennessee."Thereafter,asentencinghearingwasheld,andeachjudgmententeredreflectsthenotation"certifiedquestionoflaw."Thetrialcourtorderedthatthepreviouslyfiledstatementofthecertifiedquestionbeattachedtothejudgmentforms;however,AAitAAAAdoesAAnotappearAAasanAAAAattachmentAAtoAAthejudgmentsAAinthetechnicalrecord.@- I    `  Asathresholdissue,thestatequestionswhetherthecertifiedquestionisproperlybeforethecourt.Thestatefindsafataldeficiencyintheabsenceofthestatementofthecertifiedquestioninthejudgmentforms. #  2      ׀We #@ disagree. `  OursupremecourthasrecentlyaddressedtheproperprocedureforpreservingaquestionoflawunderRuleofCriminalProcedure37(b)(2).InStatev.  +!$ Pendergrass,937S.W.2dAA834,AAthecourtreiterateditsadmonitionsfromStatev. -#& Preston,759S.W.2dAA647:AA .%( 8 ` Regardlessofwhathasappearedinpriorpetitions,orders,colloquyinopencourtandotherwise,thefinalorderorjudgmentfromwhichthetimebeginstoruntopursueaT.R.A.P.3appealmustcontaina 2@), statementofthedispositivecertifiedquestionoflawreservedbythe 30*- defendantforappellatereviewandthequestionoflawmustbestated 4 +. soastoclearlyidentifythescopeandthelimitsofthelegalissuereserved.Forexample,wherequestionsoflawinvolvethevalidityof `6-0 searchesandtheadmissibilityofstatementsandconfessions,etc.,thereasonsrelieduponbythedefendantinthetrialcourtatthesuppressionhearingmustbeidentifiedinthestatementofthecertifiedquestionoflawandreviewbytheappellatecourtswillbelimitedtothosepasseduponbythetrialjudgeandstatedinthecertifiedquestion,absentaconstitutionalrequirementotherwise.Withoutanexplicitstatementofthecertifiedquestion,neitherthedefendant,theStatenorthetrialjudgecanmakeameaningfuldeterminationofwhethertheissuesoughttobereviewedisdispositiveofthecase.MostofthereportedandunreportedcasesseekingthelimitedappellatereviewpursuanttoTenn.R.Crim.P.37havebeendismissedbecausethecertifiedquestionwasnotdispositive.Also,theordermuststatethatthecertifiedquestionwasexpresslyreservedaspartofthepleaagreement,thattheStateandthetrialjudgeconsentedtothereservationandthattheStateandthetrialjudgeareoftheopinionthatthequestionisdispositiveofthecase.Ofcourse,theburdenisondefendanttoseethattheseprerequisitesareinthefinalorderandthattherecordbroughttotheappellatecourtscontainsalloftheproceedingsbelowthatbearuponwhetherthecertifiedquestionoflawisdispositiveandthemeritsofthequestioncertified.Noissuebeyondthescopeofthecertifiedquestionwillbeconsidered. ` `  Pendergrass,937S.W.2dat83637(quotingPreston,759S.W.2dat650)  (emphasisaddedinPendergrass).ThePendergrasscourtalsoobservedthatthe  p Prestonprerequisiteswouldbemetifthefinaljudgmentreferredtoorincorporated "P "anyotherindependentdocumentswhichwouldsatisfythePrestonrequirements." $0 ЀPendergrass,937S.W.2datAA837.AA p& Ѐ `  Inthecaseatbar,thedefendantthoroughlysummarizedthecertifiedquestionandotherpertinentinformationinapleadingentitled"CertifiedQuestionofLaw."Thepleaagreementwaspreparedwithspecificreferencetothecertifiedquestionandtheconsentofthestateandthetrialcourt.TheAAjudgmentsreflectthenotation certifiedAAquestionofAAlaw.AAAsreflectedinthetranscriptofthesentencinghearingcontainedintheappellaterecord,thetrialcourtorderedthatthecertifiedquestionpleadingAAbeAAattachedtothefinaljudgments.Althoughthecertifiedquestionpleadingisnotattachedtothejudgmentsinthetechnicalrecord,itappearselsewhereinthetechnicalrecordandbearsafilestampwiththesame 09/3 datetowhichthetrialcourtreferredinorderingitsattachmenttotheAAjudgments.Althoughitisabetterpracticefortheappellanttotakecarethatanyincorporateddocumentsarephysicallyattachedtothejudgmentwhensoorderedbythetrialcourt,weAAAAholdinthiscaseAAthatthedefendanthasproperlycertifiedhisquestiontothiscourtconsistentwiththerequirementsofPrestonandPendergrass.See  Pendergrass,937S.W.2datAA83637;AAStatev.RickyGeneWilkerson,No.01C01 `  9708CR00362,slipop.at2(Tenn.Crim.App.,Nashville,May22,1998)(Rule20Order)(certifiedquestionproperlybeforethecourtwherefinaljudgmentsincorporatebyreferencetheagreedorderssettingforththecertifiedquestion).@, II     `  Thus,weturntotheprimaryissueonappealwhetherthetrialcourtproperlydeterminedthatthedefendantwascompetenttostandtrial.Thedefendantarguesthattheexpertevidencepresentedbyhisexpertismoredefinitiveandpersuasivethanthe"speculative"testimonyofferedbythestate'sexpert. `  Whenatrialcourtconductsahearing,ithastheopportunitytoseeandhearthewitnessesandtheirconflictingtestimony.Onappeal,thetrialcourt'sfindingshavetheweightofajuryverdict.Statev.Tate,615S.W.2d161,AA162AA  +!$ (Tenn.Crim.App.1981).Whenthiscourtreviewsthetrialcourt'sfindingthatadefendantiscompetenttostandtrial,thequestioniswhethertheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourt'sdetermination.Statev.Benton,759S.W.2d 0`'* 427,AA431AA(Tenn.Crim.App.1988). `  Inthecaseatbar,bothexpertwitnessesagreedthatthequestionofthedefendant'scompetencytostandtrialwasacloseone.Thestate'switnessopinedthattheAAdefendant$sco$%$jpe$%'&jp&'(mpete()(hc()+*hnc*+-,hn,-/.hn./0nce0AAwas"somewhatborderlineandAAmarginal1.1"2  :04 as  :04 regards  :04 competence.2AA  :04 Thewitnesssaidthedefendantis"coachable"intheareasofcompetencyinwhichheisweak,andwithsomeextraworkbydefensecounsel,thedefendantcouldbeimprovedinthoseareas.Ultimately,however,thestate'sexpertopinedthatthedefendantiscompetentfortrial.Incomparison,thedefendant'sexpertwitnesstestifiedthatthedefendanthas"intellectuallimitationsasaresultofphysicalproblems"asopposedtomentalillness.Assuch,thedefendant'smentalstatuswillnotimproveinthefuture.Heopinedthatthedefendantisincompetent.Specifically,thedefendantisdeficientinhisabilitytoassisthisattorneyandunderstandtheconsequencesofafindingofguilt.Heagreedwiththestate'sexpertthatcertainaspectsoftheproceedingscouldbeexplainedtothedefendantastheprocessunfolded. `  Attheconclusionofthehearing,thetrialcourtfoundthatthedefendanthassomeproblemsinunderstandingsomeaspectsoftheproceedingsagainsthimandsomeproblemswithassistingcounsel,buttheselimitationsdonotrisetothelevelnecessaryforafindingofincompetency.Furthermore,AAthe8trialcourtfoundthe8AAdefendantAAunderst3an34oo4d5s5AAAA7667theAAnatureoftheaccusations.Assuch,AA9heis9:t:;:e:;<h<=<je<=>etrialcourtfoundthedefendant>AAcompetentfortrial. `  Thiscasepresentsatypical"battleoftheexperts."Unfortunatelyforthedefendant,??AA?itwasalsoaclosecaseinwhich?thetrialcourtweighedthetestimonyofthestate'sexpertmoreheavilythanthatofthedefenseexpert.Thetrialcourtaddressedtheessentialdifferencesbetweenthestate'sevidenceanddefenseevidenceinitsfindingsoffact.Itresolvedtheseissuesadverselytothepositionadvancedbythedefendant.Onappeal,thedefendanthasnotconvincedusthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthetrialcourt'sdeterminationofcompetency.  :04  `  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed. `     h     _______________________________ `     h     CURWOODWITT,JUDGE@CONCUR:@_____________________________JOEG.RILEY,JUDGE_____________________________ROBERTW.WEDEMEYER,SPECIALJUDGE