### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 18 , 200 4
STATE OF TENNESS EE v . CHRIST OPHE R T. COCHRAN

Direc t Appeal from the Cr im inal Cou rt for G ree ne County No. 00CR001 Jam es E. Beckner, Judge

No. E2003-02797-CC A-WR- CO - F iled Septem ber 17, 2004

Th e de fe nd a nt p le d g uil ty in 2 00 0 to ve hic ula

r h omi c ide a ndthe jud g me nt o rd e re d, in additio n to setting the sentenc e at f

ive y ear s and the re stitut ion amount, that he forf eit his driv er ’s l i cense for five y ear s. Following his rele ase from incar cer ation, he petiti oned the trial court to reduc e the pe riod of su sp e ns ionof

his lic e ns e to thr e e y e ars . T he tr ia l c ou rt g rante d th is p e tit io n, a ndtheState appea led, ar g uing that the court wa s without authority to alter the lice nse re vocation period. Upon
our re view, we find that the judg ment, which wa s the basis for the de fendant’s reque st that the trial court re duce the suspension period to three y ear s and the State’s appea l of the court order doing so, had bee n superse ded by

an ame nded judgme nt entere d sever al day s after the first which c orre cted the listing of the statute fo r t he def endant’ s conviction offe nse but omitted setting a pe riod of suspension of his driver’ s license. Ac cording ly , we vacate the orde r of the trial court re ducing the
su sp e ns ionpe ri odto thr e e y e ars a ndre ma ndfo r e ntry of a se c on d c orre c te d ju dg me nt, thi s o ne to set a pe riod for the license r evocation.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Judgme nt of th e Cr im inal Cou rt V acate d and Rem anded f or Entry of Co r r e c te d Judg m e nt

A L AN E. G L EN N , J ., d el i v er ed t h e opinion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and J AM ES C UR WO OD W I TT , J R ., J J ., joined.

Paul G . Summe rs , Atto rn e y Ge ne ra l and Re po rt e r; B re nt C. Che rry , A ssi stant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; C. Be rkele y Be ll, J r., District Attorney Gene ral; and Eric D. Christiansen, Assistant District Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llant, State of Tenne ssee. Roge r A. Woolsey , Gre eneville, Te nnessee , for the a ppellee, Christopher

T. Cochra n.-2- OP IN ION

F AC TS

The fa cts of this matter wer e set out in the order of this court g ranting the State’s petition for
writ o f c e rt ior ari :

The pe tition challeng es the orde r of the t ri al court gr anting the d ef endant’ s motion t o reduc e the term of suspension of his driving privi l eges f

rom five ( 5) to three (3) y ear s. The state a sserts that the trial court ha d lost jurisdi ction to gr ant the def endant’ s petition and thus erre d as a matter of law in altering a t er m o f t h e defenda nt’s sentenc e. The defe ndant has not filed a respons e t o t he state’ s petition.

Attachments to t h e p et i tion reflec t that on J une 2, 2000, the d ef en d ant was convicted pursuant to a g uiltyplea of vehicular ho mic ide . H e wa s se nte nc e d to a te rm of fi ve y e ars imp ri so nme nt, fi ne d $ 1, 00 0, a ndor de re d to pay res tituti on . Furthe r, the [orig ina l] judgme nt form stipulated that the def endant’ s d ri ver’ s license wa s suspended “ for a

period of f

ive y ear s.”

I n a n u nd a te d p le a din g , th e de fe nd a nt, thro ug h c ou ns e l, petitioned the Tenne ssee Depa rtment of Safety to r einstate his driving privi le g e s. I n s up po rt

of his pe tit io n, th e de fe nd a nt n ote d th a t w ith the application of earned sente nce c redits, he ha d completed se rvice of his sentenc e and w as re lease d from custody on May 22, 2003. The petition was denied. I n an October 16, 2003, letter, the de partment’s g ener al counsel responded that under a pplicable statutes, the defen d an t was not elig ible to apply for a driver’ s license until J une 2005.

. . . . On Octobe r 27, 2003, the de fen d an t petitioned the Criminal Court for Gr eene Countyfor an order “re ducing his period of suspension and for

reinstateme nt of his drivin g p ri v i l eg es . . . .” F ind ing that th e de fe nd a nt h a d f ull y se rv e d h is s e nte nc e , p a id [a ll] fi ne s a ndc os ts, a ndha d in c ur re d n o o the r c ri min a l cha

rg e s si nc e his rele ase, the court found that the petition was well-take n. The c ourt order ed that the pe riod of suspension of the de fendant’s driving privileg es in the State of Tenne ssee be amende d from five (5) to thre e (3 ) y e ars

.T h e ha n d w ritten no ta tio n a p p e a rs to re a d e ithe r “fo r 6 -2 -0 0 ” o r “/o r 6 -2 -0 0 .” 1

B o t h judgm ent s p rovide t hat t he d efend ant i s t o pa y $1 5 , 2 3 9

. 2 3 t o t he vi ct i m ’ s est at e, t hi s ap p arent l y be i ng 2

t he co st o f

t he f un era l , w i t h thi s am o un t t o b e red uc ed b y i nsur an ce p aym en t s rec eive d b y t he estate. P resu m ab l y, unless

an d u n t i l t h e def

en dan t h as s at i s f

i ed t h i s obl i g at i on , h e ca n n ot obt ai n a dr i v er ’ s l i ce n s e, r eg ar dl es s of w h et h er t h e per i od

o f s uspensi o n fo r t he l i cense has run.
-3- The State’s pe tition for review via writ of certiora ri followed, and we entere d an order g ranting the petition on Febr

uary 2, 2004.

AN AL YSI S

The tec hnical re cord in this matter c ontains two judgme nt forms, the first dated June 2, 2000, wh ic h pr ov ide s, “ Drive r L ic e ns e su sp e nd e d fo r a pe ri od of F ive Ye ars ” in the “ Spe c ia l Co nd iti on s” bo x. I t is thi s jud g me nt wh ic h is re lie d up on by bo th pa rt ie s in thi s app e a l. Ho we ve r, the re c or d a lso
c on ta ins a n a me nd e d ju dg me nt, e nte re d o n Jun e 20 , 2 00 0 “ fo r 6 -2 -0 0. ” Onthi s ju dg me nt f orm, 1 there appea

r to be only two chang es from the first judgme nt: the corre ct sec tion of Tennesse e Code Annotated is listed in the conviction offe nse box , and, in the “Spec ial Conditi ons” box are the wor ds “Driver L icense ,” with no explanation or amplification. Pursuant to T ennesse e Cod e Annotated section 39-13-213, the drivi ng privileg es of any defe ndant convicte d of vehic ular homicide must be suspended for at least t hree and no more than ten y ear s. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 55-50- 501(a) (1) pr ovides that the driver’s l icense of a de fendant convicted of vehicular homicide is to be revoke d “for

the term of the sentenc e rec eived by the convicted person. I f the per son is relea sed on parole prior to the end of the sentenc e, an ope rator' s license may be re issued o n petition of the person' s probation and parole off icer and upon satisfa ctory

completion of a c omplete licensing examination, subj ect to the a pproval of the commissioner.”
Thus, the proc edura l posture of this case is that the State’s appe al is from modification of a judgme nt that no longe r wa s in effe ct at the time of the modification. Since, as we have stated, the second judg ment inadvertently omitted se tting a period of r evocation of the defe ndant’s license , one must be set. Acc ording ly , we r emand this matter to the t rial court for entry of a c orre cted judg ment which sets the pe riod the defe ndant’s license is to be suspended. The pe riod to be set is within the dis c re tio n o f the tr ia l c ou rt

. 2

___________________________________ ALAN E. GL

ENN, JUDGE