### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 3, 200 4
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. STEV E A . WH ITE

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 99-09415 Joseph B. Dailey, Jud ge

No. W2003-01947-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled October 25, 2004

Def endant, Steve A . Whit e, appe als the trial court’s order amending Def endant’ s judgme nt to gr ant restitution to the victim i n his case. B eca use the trial c o u rt d id not have jurisdiction to amend Def endant’ s judgme nt, we re verse the judgme nt of the trial court a nd rema nd for r einstatement of the judg ment of convic tion as orig inally enter ed. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Trial Court Re verse d and Rem anded

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J

. , d eli vere d the opinion of the court, in which G AR Y R. W ADE , P.J ., and N OR MA M C G EE O G LE , J ., joined.

J ames S. Hay wood, J r., B rownsville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Steve A. White.

Paul G . Summe rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r; Mic ha e l Ma rk ha m, A ssi stant A tto rn e y

Ge ne ra l; Wil liam L . Gibbons, District Attorney Ge n era l; and J ames L ammey , Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, the State of Tenne ssee.
OP IN ION

I. Bac kgr ound

Def endant wa s convicted on Janu ar y 2 9 , 2000, of theft of property betwee n $10,000 and $60,000, violating the sa les tax l aw, a nd attempted first deg ree murder. T he trial c ourt, by judgme nt enter ed on Februa

ry 28, 2000, sentenc ed Defendant as a Rang e I standard offende r to an e ffe ctive sentenc e of thirty -one y ear s in the Depa rtment of Correc tion. The jury did not assign a

value to the stolen property

which formed the basis of D efe ndant’s theft conviction as provide d for in Te nnessee Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 20 -1 16 , a ndthe tr ia l c ou rt did no t ord e r D e fe nd a nt t o p a y re sti tut ionto the victim, Phil lip Rouss , J r. The State did not raise any i s s u e on Def endant’ s direct a

ppeal reg arding the failure of the trial court to or der restitution to the victim. Sta te v . Ste v e A. W hit e , No.-2-

W2000-01148-CC A- R 3 -C D, 2 0 0 3 W L 2 1 3 3 8 9 2 0 (T en n
. C ri m
. Ap p
. , J ac kson, May 23, 2003), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 2003)

. On May 27, 2003 , t he State filed a motion to m odify

Def endant’ s judgme nt of conviction
re qu e sti ng that th e tr ia l c ou rt g rant the vic tim , Ph ili p Ro us e I I I , re sti tut ion

. Re lying on the su pr e me court’s analy sis in Sta te v . B ur k ha rt , 566 S.W .2d 871 (Tenn. 1978), the S tate ar g ued that the f ailure to gr ant re stitut ion conflicte d with the provisi ons of Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 40-20-116 and thus rende red D efe ndant’s judg ment illega l. The State also ar g ued that the victim had a constitutional right to re stitut ion under Article I , section 35 of the T ennesse e Constituti on. The subjec t matter underly ing D efe ndant’s thef t convictio nin v o lv e d

th ec a p it a l c o n tr ib u ti ons a n d a s s e ts o f a p ar tn e r s h ip in w h ic h M r
. Ro u s s a n d D e f e n d a n t bo thh e ldo w n e r s h ip in te r e s ts

. We g lean f rom the S tate’s moti on that the post-trial plea ding w as prompted by the delay s Mr. Rouss had thus far encounte red in civil court in hi s attempts to secure an ac counting of the books and r ecor ds of the p artnership, the clea ring of title to the partner ship’s realty , and the dissolution of the partne rship. The trial court ac knowledg ed that it was impossible to know what wa s in the minds of the jury on the issue of re stitut ion, but felt that the trial court’s failure to order r estitution was “an
err or of c onstitut ional mag nitude.” Rely ing on Bu rk ha rt , the t rial court gr anted the State’ s motion to amend De fendant’s judgme nt. Be cause there was no e vidence as to the value of the prope rty taken from Mr. Rouss, the trial court ordere d Def endant to pay

$10,001 to Mr. Rouss as restitution, the min imu m d o ll ar v a lu e o f th e p r o p e r ty r a n g e s u p p o r ti n g D e f e n d a n t’ s th e f

t c o n v ic ti o n
. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14- 105(4).

I nitially , we a g ree with the State’s arg ument that Def endant c annot appe al as of right f rom the tr ia l c ou rt ’s dis po sit ionof the State ’s mot ionun de r R ule 3 o f the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f A pp e llate Procedur e. Rule 3 i dentifies and limit s the conditi ons under which an appeal may lie as a matter of ri g ht, no ne of wh ic h are app lic able in thi s ma tte r. Te nn
. R. A pp . P. 3( b) ; Cox v . S tat e , 53 S.W .3d 28 7, 29 3 ( Te nn . Crim. Ap p. 20 01 ); Sta te v . Le ath , 977 S.W .2d 132, 135 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998)

. No ne the le ss, a s the State su g g e sts , we ma y re vie w D e fe nd a nt’ s c ha lle ng e to the mod if ic a tio n o f h is sentenc e under

what is commonly

ref err ed to as the “ common-law wr i t of ce rtiorari.” Le ath , 977 S.W. 2da t 13 5. Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d se c tio n 27 -8 -1 01 pr ov ide s that th e writ m a y be us e d to addre ss situations where a n “infe rior tribunal . . . has exceede d the jurisdiction confe rre d, or is acting illega lly , when, in the j u d gm en t of the court, there is no other plain, speedy

or ade quate r emedy .” Be cause we conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction to modi fy Def endant’ s sentence , we shall treat this matter as a petition for writ of certiorari by Def endant. See State v . Johnson , 569 S.W .2d 808, 815 (Tenn. 1978)

. On appe al, the State conc edes that the trial court w as without jurisdiction to m odify Def endant’ s sentence to include the payment of re stitut ion to the victim, and we ag ree . On Fe bruary 28, 2000, the trial court sentence d Def endant to an e ffe ctive sente nce of thirty -one y ear s in the D e p ar t m e n to f

C o r r e c ti o n f o r , a m o n g o t h e r

o f f e n s e s , a t t e m p t e d f

i r s td e g r e e m u r d e r , a

C l a s s A f e l o n y. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 11-117(a )(2) . Once Def endant wa s tr an sfer

red to the c ustody

of the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n, the t ri al court

los t ju ri sd ic tio n o ve r a ll thr e e of his se nte nc e s, a nd , a s a-3-

g ener al rule, the power to amend its judgme nts. Id. § 4 0- 35 -2 12 (d ); State v. Bowling , 958 S.W .2d 362, 363 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997). It is well-settled that a judg ment bey ond the jurisdiction of the court is void. State v. Pe ndergrass, 9 3 7 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 4 , 8 3 7 (T en n
. 1 9 9 6 ), ci t i n g Br own v . B ro wn , 198 Tenn. 600, 281 S.W.2d 492, 497 (1955).

The State a g ree s that the failure to awar d restitution as a part of Def endant’ s sentencing was “more than a mere c lerica l error .” See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36(b). I n Sta te v . M oo re , 814 S.W .2d 381, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) , a pane l of this Court has previously examined the abili t y o f a tria l court to modify a defe ndant’s sentenc e to inc lude restitution under Rule 36. I n Mo ore , we c oncluded that if a trial c ourt, in fac t, orders r estitution as a co n d i t i o n of probation during the sentenc ing hearing, but the judg ment omits such a condition, then t he trial court reta ins authority to modify

the defe ndant’s judg ment to refle ct the payment of restitut ion under Rule 36. I f, on the other hand, the tr ia l c ou rt “ or de rs pr ob a tio n an d, thr ou g h ove rs ig ht or oth e rw ise , o mit s r e sti tut ion a s a c on dit ion , it s authority to modify

the conditions to include restitution ends upon such or der be coming final.” Id. The tria l co u rt in the case sub judice clea rly acknow ledg ed that it did not order r estitution when imposing De fendant’s sentenc e. Whatever the re asons for this omission, we cannot c onclude that there was a

clerical er

ror in this matter. See Sta te v
. Ho be rt D e an Da v is , No. E2000-02879- CCAR3-CD, 2002 WL 340597 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knox ville, Mar. 4, 2002) , no perm. to appeal filed , (Wh ile the tr ia l c ou rt

ma y c or re c t c le ri c a l e rr or s p ur su a nt t o Ru le 36 , it is w ith ou t jur isd ic tio n to corr ect substantive e rror s after the judg ment has bec ome final.)

I nitially , the State soug ht a mo dification of De fendant’s sentenc e under Bu rk ha rt which provides that “a trial judge may corr ect an illega l, as opposed to a merely err oneous, sentenc e at a ny time, even if

it has become final.” Bu rk ha rt , 566 S.W .2d at 873. The Bu rk ha rt court re cog nized, h o w e v e r , th a t w h il e a

s e n te n c e ind ir e c t c o n tr a v e n ti o n o f a s tatu te is il le g a l an d v o id , a f in al jud g me nt w hic h, a lth ou g h in c or re c t, i s in c on fo rm ity

wi th an a

pp lic able stat ut e is n ot s ub je c t to amendment. Id. As the State now c oncede s, reg ardle ss of the jury ’s thoug ht proce sses on the issue of re stitut ion in this case , there is nothing on the fa ce of the trial court’s ju dg ment in the theft conviction which indicates that the t rial court was without authority or jurisdiction to issue it. See Cox , 5 3 S

. W

. 3 d at 2 9 2 , (q u o t i n g State v. Donald Re e Jone s , No. M2000-00381-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1520012, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Oct. 13, 2000)), no perm. to appeal filed ; Mo ore , 814 S.W .2d at 383.

Ba sed upon the for eg oing, we fi n d that the trial court was without jurisdiction to m odify Def endant’ s sentence

. CO NC LU SION The judg ment of the trial c ourt is reve rsed, a nd this case is re manded f or re instatement of the judgme nt of conviction as origina lly enter ed.

___________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODAL

L , J UDGE