### IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT J AC KS ON A s s i gne d on B r i e f

s Sept e m be r 11, 2007 S T AT E OF T E NN E S S E E v . J E F F RE Y L E E F I E L DS
Di rec t A pp ea l fr om t he Ci rcu it C ou rt f orCa rro ll C ou nt y No. 05CR122 C. C reed McGinl ey, Judge

No. W2006-01378-CCA-R3-CD - Filed February 12, 2008

Th e d ef en dant, Jef

fr eyLe e F iel ds , a

pp eal s th e o rde r de clarin g h im a m oto r ve hic le h ab itu al o ff en de r (MV HO ) by

de fa ult jud gm ent. H e co nte nd s, an d th e S tat e ag ree s, that t he R ule s o f C ivi l P roc ed

ure we re n ot f oll ow ed reg ard ingser

vic e o f p roc ess , n oti ce o f h ear ing , no tic e o f d ef au lt j ud gm ent, n oti ce of entryand s erv ice o f

jud gm ent. F urt

he r, he c onten ds th ere w ere ins uf fi cie nt c onvic tio ns to s up po rt a ju dg m ent de clarin g h im a m oto r ve hic le habitua l offend er. Af ter rev iew , w e co nc lud e th at a co nv ict ion

on ap pe al i s a f

ina l co nv ict ion

fo r the purp os e o f d ete rm ini ng MV HO status ; ho we ve r, because the pr oper procedur es were not followed i n obtaining t he judgment declaring t he defendant a motor vehicle habitual offender, it should be vacated. Te nn . R . A pp . P . A pp ea l as of Righ t; J ud gme ntof t he Ci rcu it C ou rt V ac ate d J OHN E VERETT W I L L I AMS , J., deliver ed the opinion of the c ourt, in which D AVI D H. W ELL ES and A LA N E. G LE NN , JJ., joined. Be njam in S . D em

ps ey , H untin gd on , T enne sse e, fo r th e ap pe llant, Jef fr eyLe e F iel ds

. Ro be rt E . C oo pe r, Jr., Attor ne y Ge ne ral and

Rep ort er; Sop hia

S. L ee, As sis tant A tto rne y G en era l; Hans el J . M cC ad am s, Di str ict Attor ne y G en era l; and

St ep he n D . J ack so n, As sis tant D istric t Attor ne y G en era l, f

or t he ap pe lle e, St ate of

Te nn ess ee. OP IN ION Th e ca se i nv olv es a

de fa ult jud gm ent take n, d ecl ari ng th e de fe nd ant a m oto r v eh icl e h ab itu al of fe nd er. Th is a

pp eal wa s take n d ire ctl y f rom the entryof

the de fa ult jud gm ent. Th e R ule s o f C ivi l P roc ed

ure ap ply to p roc eed ings unde r the Mo tor Ve hic le H ab itu al Of fe nd er A ct. Te nn . Co de Ann. § 5 5-1 0-6 01 . A s th e S tat e co nc ed es, the de fe nd ant w as n ot p rop erl y ser ve d w iththe pe tit ion

an d s ho w c au se o rde r an d re cei ved no noti ce of a h ear ingdate, no no tic e of default judgment date, and no n ot ic e of entry and s ervice of judgment. Failure t o follow the proper proce dure demands that the judgment be vacat ed.-2-

Up on the fi lin g of

a p eti tio n byth e St ate to d ecl are an ind ivi du al a MV HO , a tri al c ourt s ha ll make an order directi ng the named individual to appear before the c ou rt to show cause why he or she should not be ba rred from operati ng a motor vehicle. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-608(a). The tri al co urt s ha ll ord er the d ef

en dant to ap pe ar b ef

ore it o n a cer tai n d ate an d ti m e, no t le ss t han th irty days after the da te of servic e of th e pe ti tion and order . See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-608(b). A copy of bot h th e pe ti ti on and the order shal l be served on t he named individual. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-609. De sp ite the fa ilure t o p rop erl y s erv e th e d ef en dant, a de fa

ult ju dg m ent w as e nte red

ag ain st him on June 6, 2006. Be fo re t ak inga d ef

au lt j ud gm ent, T enne sse e R ule of Ci vil Pr oc ed

ure 55 .0 1 re qu ire s th at: [a ]l l parti es a ga ins t who m a d ef au lt j ud gm ent is sou ght sha ll be serv ed wi th a wr itt en notice of applic ation for judgment at leas t five days before t he hear ing on the applicat ion, regardl ess of whether the par ty has made an appearance i n the acti on. No su chno tic e w as s erv ed on the de fe nd ant in

the ins tant ca se. Fi na lly , a s to th is is su e, the re i s n o re co rd t hat th e d ef

au lt j ud gm ent, a s enter ed , w as s erv ed up on the de fe nd ant. T enne sse e R ule of Ci vil Pr oc ed

ure 58 p rov ide s thr ee ways to e nte r ju dg m ent: 1) t he judg e’s sign ature an d the sign atures of al l the part ies or couns el; or 2) th e jud ge ’s s ign ature, the sig natur e o f o ne partyo r co un sel an d a cer tif icate o f t he cle rk t hat a c op y o f t

he pro po sed

ord er has been serve d on the other pa rties orcounsel, or 3) the judge’s signature a nd a certi ficate of the cle rk t hat a c op y h as b een

ser ve d on all other p art ies or c ouns el. In t his cas e, the jud gm ent w as signed by the t rial j udge and the Assist ant Distri ct Attorney butwas not signed by the defendantor the de fe nd ant’s co un sel . N or i s th ere a ce rti fi cat e o f t he cle rk i nd icatin g th at a

co pyof the pro po sed order was served on the defendant or hi s counsel. Further, the defendant claims that one of his convi ctions was not afinal convicti on and, the ref ore , c ou ld n ot b e u sed

to s up po rt the MV HO jud gm ent. The State and defendant a gree thatthe convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) a nd dri vin g w ith a cancelle d, su sp en de d li cen se w ere co mm itt ed on No ve m be r 4, 20 01 , and

can on ly count as one convi ction pursua nt to Tennessee Code Annotated secti on 55 -10-604(b). The defendant also has a n additional conviction for DUI on September 27, 2001, which is uncontes ted. Th e d efe nd an t c on te nd s t ha t t he Aug us t 2 2, 20 05 DUI co nv ic ti onwa s no t f in al atth e t ime the co urt co ns ide red

the pe tit ion

an d e nte red

the o rde r b eca

us e it wa s on

ap pe al. Th e d ef

en dant’ s dir ect ap pe al o f h is Aug us t 22, 200 5, DU I convic tio n wa s, in fa ct, aff irm ed on Ap ril 5, 20 07 . S ee St at e v . J eff

re y Le e F ie ld s, No. W200 5- 02 12 8- CCA -R 3- CD, 20 07 WL 10 28 64 0, at*1 (T en n. Cr im. App. Apr. 5, 2007). The question is whether a convic tion on appeal may be considered as a final convi ction and ap pro pri ate fo r th e tr ial co urt to c on sid er whe n d ete rm ini ng MV HO status . T he an sw er is f ound in State v. Sneed, 8 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. Crim. A pp. 1999), a case dea ling with the identica l question.-3-

In Sneed, this c ourt held that a convict ion on appeal count ed as a final convi ction for deter mination of MVHO status. W e cannot dist inguish the fact s in the ins tant case from those in Sneed. Conclusion Fo r the reas on s h ere tof

ore stated , th e ju dg m ent de clarin g th e d ef en dant a m oto r ve hic le habitual offender is vacated.

___________________________________ JOHN EVE RETT W ILLIAMS, JUDGE