# FILED
June 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON
STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) ) Appellee, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9712-CC-00488 ) vs. ) FAYETTE COUNTY ) SHERI JO COLE CLEMENTS, ) NO. 4483 ) Appellant. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon the state's motion to dismis s. The appellant did not file a response . Based upon our review of the entire record before the Court, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The appellant in this case pled guilty to driv ing under the influence, fourth offense, driving on a rev oked license, and child endang erment. The appellant receiv ed an effective eleven months and tw enty-nine day sentence an d a fine of $1,200. Prior to entering the guilty

pleas, the appellant filed a motio n to suppress the results of the blood alcohol test performed subseq uent to the appellant’s arres t. After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion . The appellant has attempted to reser ve the right to appeal the suppression issue.

In State v. Preston , 759 S.W.2d 647, 650 (Tenn. 1988),our Supreme Court stated that when a defendant pleads guilty and w ishes to reserve a cer

tified question of law pursuant t o Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i) or (iv) , "the final order or judgment from which the time begins to run to pursue a T.R.A.P. 3 ap peal must contain a statement of the dispositive certified question of law reserved by defendant for appellate review and the question of law must be s tated so as to clearly identify the scope and the limits of the leg al issue reserved." Id. at 650. It is the defendant's responsibility to as

sure that the final order compli es with these requir ements and that2

the record on appeal contains the proceedings necessary to a complete determination. Id.
In this case, the appellant failed to explicitly reserve the right to appeal a certified q uestion of law that was di spositiv

e of the case as

mandated by Te nn. R. Crim

. P. 37(b)(2)(i), (i

v) and Preston . The trial court’s order which purportedly

certifies the question of law was not the final order from which the time began to run to pursu e an appeal as of right. Moreov er, “the judgments do not cont ain an identification of the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved as required. Nor do the judgments contain any statement in satisfaction of the reservation requi rements, nor do they contain any stateme nt that t he questi on is disp ositive, a ll explicit ly required by Preston ." State v. Pendergrass , 937 S.W.2d 834, 83 7 (Tenn. 1996). Nor does the sentencing order, which was entered after the judgments, refer to any certifed question of law. As our Supreme Court has stated, these “mandatory” requirements are “unam biguous.” Id. In addition, these requirements apply “regardless of what has appeared in prior petitions, orders, colloquy in open court or otherwise.” Preston , 759 S.W.2d at 650.

For these reasons, we ar e precluded from considering whether the trial court properly denied the appellant’s motion to suppres s. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion is granted and the judgment of th e trial court is hereby affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tenne ssee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules. Costs are taxed to the appel lant.3 Enter, this the ___ day of June, 1998.

______________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE

______________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUD GE

______________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E