# FIL ED No vemb er 2 7, 19 96 Cecil W. Crow son A pp ellat e C ou rtC lerk IN THE CO URT OF CR IM IN AL AP PEALS OF TENN ESSEE

AT NA SH VILLE JAN UA RY

1996 SESSI ON STATE OF TENN ESSEE , ) C. C. A. N o. 01 C01 -9 506- CC -0 0178 ) Ap pe l l ee , ) BE D F OR D C OU N TY ) VS . ) Ho n o ra b le Ch a rle s L e e , J u d ge ) AN TONI O ERASM O AL VARAD O, ) (Attempt ed F elo ny M urder , ) Ag g ra v ated Ass aul t, Ag g ra v ated A p p e ll a n t . ) Ra p e , A ggra va t e d B u rg la ry)
D ISSE NTIN G AN D CO NC UR RI NG OPI NI ON I ag re e w it h the maj or ity 's di smi ss al of the attempted felony murder conv icti on. Our

Supreme C our

t, in Stat e v . Ki mbrou g h, 92 4 S. W .2d 8 88 ( Tenn. 199 6), ruled th at at tem pte d felon y murd er is not a crime in T enn essee . I would find th at t he attempted sec ond deg re e murder co nv icti on c oul d be re v iv ed. After the j ur y sp oke, no reason ex is ts to i nv ali date it s v erdict. The appel lan t s houl d be sent enced for t hat c onv icti on w it hout the s tate’ s h av ing to tr y hi m ag ain . The ju ry found the appel lan t g uil ty of both attempt ed felony murder and attempt ed s econd deg re e murder . Pr ior to sent enci ng , t he tr ial j udg e nar ro w ed the c onv icti ons for w hic h the appel lan t woul d be sent enced . The tr ial j udg e was of the i mpres si on th at attempted sec ond deg re e murder w as a l ess er

i ncl uded of fense of felon y murd er. Cou rt : . . . Buti t s eems t o the C our t t hat t he Attempted 2nd degree m urde r would merge w ith the Attem pte d Felon y murd er. Are w e i n ag re ement on that ? D oes the S tate ag re e w it h the Cou rt ? [Prose cuto r]: . . . Is tha t w hatthe Cou rt is ruling? Y es, sir, w e woul d ag re e w it h tha t.I nte re s ting ly, the re ap pe ar s to be ne ithe r a n o ra l no r a w ritten m otio n b y eithe r p ar ty 1 req uest i ng d i sm i ssal of t he a t t em pt ed se cond degr ee m urd er char ge. M ore over, t he a ppel l ant ' s br i ef not es t he o rde r' s i rr egul ari t y . T he o rde r was never si gned byei t herpart y nordoe s i tapp eart hatt he or de r w as ev erse rv ed on eithe r p ar ty. The tr ial j udg e the n s ua s ponte dis mis sed the a ttempt ed s econd deg re e murder charg e. 1 A j udg ment w hic h i s void i s i n l eg al effectno j udg ment and ca nnot operate as a merg er

si nce iti s s ubj ectto col lat eral impeac hment atany ti me. S ee H am v . H am, 204 S.W .2d 1 13 ( Tenn. C t. App. 1947) ( hol din g "su ch jud g ment una v ailing as a defense . . . [as] it is obvious tha t the [v oid] jud gmen t produ ced is in fact no final dete rmi nati on of the ri g hts of the p arti es, and that no obs tac le has intervened to prevent the m f rom se eking such de term inatio n." ). Atth e riskof

m isqu o ti n g him or, eve n wo rse , m isi n te rp re ti n g his m e a n in g, I rely on t he perdurabl e s tatementof Professor E. E. O v erton o f the U niv ersi ty of T enn essee College of

Law: “If it’s void, it’s v oid.” Dr. Ov erton has tau ght this conc ept t o hundreds of his st udents , i ncl udi ng me. I t hin k I kn ow w hat i t means now . In t he c ontext of thi s c ase, the attempt ed felony murder j udg ment i s void . T he trial judge m erged the atte mp ted secon d de gree m urde r w ith a void jud g ment. A void j udg ment, how ev er , c annot cons ti tute a final dete rmi nati on. T h e at te m p te d se co n d de gre e m u rd e r co n vict io n , t h e re fo re , c o u ld no t m e rge w it h the v oid j udg ment. The merg er

w as v oid and of no l eg al effect . Acc ordin g ly , I woul d order the t ri al cour

t t o ent er a j udg ment affirmi ng the attempt ed s econd deg re e murder conv icti on. The tr ial co urt woul d the n s entenc e the appel lan t on that conv icti on. T o do othe rw ise w aste s judicial resources. In all else, I con cur.

_________ _________

_________

_____ PA UL G. SUM ME RS , J u d ge