Opinion ID: 1057709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Scope of the Certified Question

Text: The State argues in this Court that under the community caretaking function of law enforcement, upon observing the flashing lights and hand signals from Ms. Ferrell, Officer Tarkington was not only justified, but obligated, to make the traffic stop to assess the situation. We note, however, that this issue was neither raised in, nor addressed by, the Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, our preliminary concern is whether this issue relating to the community caretaking function is encompassed within the scope of the question certified for appeal. The agreed order referenced by the judgment document in this case states the certified issue as: that the stop of the Defendant's vehicle and seizure of the Defendant's person (by which law enforcement obtained evidence that the Defendant motioned to be suppressed) was not based upon reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense had been or was about to be committed.... It was on this narrow issue, and this issue alone, that the Court of Criminal Appeals issued its opinion. The right to plead guiltyand still preserve a question of law for appealis a product of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, adopted effective July 13, 1978. While the initial version of Rule 37 provided the right to appeal a certified question, it contained no guidance or procedures for raising such appeals. [6] In State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988), this Court provided detailed guidance on the necessary prerequisites for seeking appellate review of a certified question of law under Rule 37. We stated that the final order or judgment from which the time begins to run to pursue . . . [an] appeal must contain a statement of the dispositive certified question of law reserved . . . for appellate review and that the question of law must be stated so as to clearly identify the scope and the limits of the legal issue reserved. Id. at 650. Moreover, we emphasized that the order must state that the certified question was expressly reserved as part of a plea agreement, that the State and the trial judge consented to the reservation and that the State and the trial judge are of the opinion that the question is dispositive of the case. Of course, the burden is on defendant to see that these prerequisites are in the final order and that the record brought to the appellate courts contains all of the proceedings below that bear upon whether the certified question of law is dispositive and the merits of the question certified. Id. The decision in Preston was intended to establish a simple, uniform method by which certified questions may be pursued on appeal. The Preston prerequisites have been strictly construed; indeed, we have described the requirements in Preston as explicit and unambiguous. State v. Irwin, 962 S.W.2d 477, 479 (Tenn.1998); State v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn.1996). As noted, Preston itself states that the question of law must be stated so as to clearly identify the scope and the limits of the legal issue reserved. . . [and] [n]o issue beyond the scope of the certified question will be considered.  Preston, 759 S.W.2d at 650 (emphasis added). The present form of Rule 37, which became effective on July 1, 2002, expressly adopted the Preston prerequisites in subsection (b)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). Under the current Rule, an appeal may be pursued after a plea of guilty or nolo contendere if the defendant entered into a plea agreement under Rule 11(a)(3) but explicitly reserved  with the consent of the state and of the court  the right to appeal a certified question of law that is dispositive of the case, and the following requirements are met: (i) the judgment of conviction or other document to which such judgment refers that is filed before the notice of appeal, contains a statement of the certified question of law that the defendant reserved for appellate review; (ii) the question of law is stated in the judgment or document so as to identify clearly the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved; (iii) the judgment or document reflects that the certified question was expressly reserved with the consent of the state and the trial court; and (iv) the judgment or document reflects that the defendant, the state, and the trial court are of the opinion that the certified question is dispositive of the case[.] Tenn. R.Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). In the trial court, the issue concerning the constitutional validity of the traffic stop was initially raised by the defendant in a motion to suppress. In response to that motion, the State suggested that, viewed under a standard of reasonableness, the officer's investigative and community caretaking functions justified the stop. In ruling on the motion, the trial court acknowledged that it was a close question, but ultimately concluded that public safety concerns rendered the stop valid. Despite the earlier references to community caretaking and public safety concerns during the course of the suppression hearing, when the parties entered the plea agreement and drafted the certified question under Rule 37, they failed to include the specific question of whether the traffic stop of the defendant was justified under the community caretaking function. The narrow issue certified was whether the stop of the defendant's vehicle and seizure of the defendant's person was based upon reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that a criminal offense had been or was about to be committed. [7] Accordingly, we are limited to consideration of that narrow issue. Once again we emphasize the importance of clearly identifying the scope and limits of an issue intended to be preserved by a certified question. As we have stated repeatedly, no issue beyond the scope of the certified question will be considered. Irwin, 962 S.W.2d at 478-79; Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d at 836-37; Preston, 759 S.W.2d at 650; see also State v. Norword, 938 S.W.2d 23, 26 (Tenn.Crim.App.1996). Regardless of what has appeared in prior petitions, orders, colloquy in open court or otherwise, the final order or judgment from which the time begins to run to pursue a T.R.A.P. 3 appeal must contain a statement of the dispositive certified question of law reserved by defendant for appellate review and the question of law must be stated so as to clearly identify the scope and the limits of the legal issue reserved. For example, where questions of law involve the validity of searches and the admissibility of statements and confessions, etc., the reasons relied upon by defendant in the trial court at the suppression hearing must be identified in the statement of the certified question of law and review by the appellate courts will be limited to those passed upon by the trial judge and stated in the certified question, absent a constitutional requirement otherwise. Preston, 759 S.W.2d at 650 (emphasis added). Regretfully, while our consideration of the stop under the community caretaking exception might well yield a different outcome, we are limited to consideration of the question preserved, to wit: whether the stop in this case was supported by reasonable suspicion. [8]