Opinion ID: 1757470
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of a Minute Entry

Text: The next question we address is whether the record, as supplemented by the trial court minutes, is adequate to confer jurisdiction upon the Court of Criminal Appeals. By order entered May 5, 2008, we directed that the trial court review the record for a written order denying the defendant's motion for new trial, enter such an order if not already contained in the record, and forward the record along with such supplementation to this Court. In response, we received a supplemental record from the trial court, which included a page from the trial court's minute book for August 28, 2006, with an entry showing that the trial court denied the defendant's motion for new trial on that date. However, this supplemental record did not comply with this Court's order to include a separate written order denying the motion. Thus, we are presented with the question of whether this minute entry is an entry of the order denying a new trial under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c), which triggers the time for filing an appeal, and therefore, whether this minute entry is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the intermediate court. Panels of the Court of Criminal Appeals have disagreed as to the action a trial court must take to demonstrate that the trial court has denied a motion for new trial. In State v. Foreman, No. M2002-02595-CCA-R3-CD, 2004 WL 404696, at -2 (Tenn.Crim.App. Mar. 04, 2004), the Court of Criminal Appeals, dismissing defendant's appeal, stated that [u]ntil the trial court denies the motion for a new trial, this court does not have jurisdiction over the case and implied that a minute entry or document indicating the trial court denied the defendant's motion for new trial would have been sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction. In State v. Gentry, No. E2007-02029-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 2938040, at  (Tenn.Crim.App. July 30, 2008), the court determined that dismissal of the appeal was appropriate where there was no written order or minute entry entered, even though the trial transcript showed that the trial court intended to deny the motion. The court implied that either a written order or a minute entry would have been sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction, but that the trial transcript was not enough. However, in State v. March, No. M2006-02732-CCA-R3-CD, 2008 WL 2743752, at  (Tenn.Crim.App. July 15, 2008), the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the trial court's minute entry of the denial of the motion for new trial was the written order conferring jurisdiction on the appellate court. This conclusion implies that no written order separate and distinct from the minutes is necessary. Clearly, a uniform rule is needed so that appeals can be heard on their merits, rather than dismissed due to procedural deficiencies. The Court of Criminal Appeals is required to determine if it has jurisdiction in each case presented for its review. Tenn. R.App. P. 13(b). As the Court of Criminal Appeals noted in this case, Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c) states that if a motion for new trial is filed, the time for appeal for all parties shall run from entry of the order denying a new trial. Tenn. R.App. P. 4(c) (emphasis added). Subdivision (e) of Rule 4 further provides in pertinent part as follows: The trial court retains jurisdiction over the case pending the court's ruling on any timely filed motion specified in subparagraph... (c) of this rule. A notice of appeal filed prior to the trial court's ruling on a timely specified motion shall be deemed to be premature and shall be treated as filed after the entry of the order disposing of the motion and on the day thereof. Tenn. R.App. P. 4(e). Thus, Rule 4 dictates that after the defendant filed his motion for new trial, the Court of Criminal Appeals did not have jurisdiction to hear the defendant's appeal until the trial court entered an order denying the motion for new trial. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly adjudged that it did not acquire jurisdiction of the defendant's appeal pending the trial court's entry of a written order denying the defendant's motion for new trial. We conclude, however, that the minute entry, subsequently filed with this Court, indicating that the trial court denied the motion for new trial is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court of Criminal Appeals. [3] The keeping of daily minute entries is addressed by statute at Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-1-106, which provides in pertinent part at subsection (a) as follows: The minutes of the court for each day's work shall be signed by the judge. The minute book shall provide a place for the judge's signature after the minute entries each day; however, where the orders of the court are photocopied so that an accurate facsimile of the entire order and judge's signature appears, it shall be sufficient for the judge to sign at the end of the minute book approving all the minutes in the book. Tenn.Code Ann. § 16-1-106(a) (1994). The importance and reliability of court minutes as a record of trial proceedings has been acknowledged by this Court for many years. In Mullen v. State, 164 Tenn. 523, 51 S.W.2d 497, 498 (1932), we noted that courts speak only through their minutes. In Dyer v. State, 79 Tenn. 509, 514 (Tenn.1883), we noted that the court minutes are the highest evidence of what is done in the court, and, so far as they are records of judicial proceedings, import absolute verity, and are conclusive unless attacked for fraud. And in Howard v. State, 217 Tenn. 556, 399 S.W.2d 738, 740 (1966), echoing Dyer, we further recognized the significance of minutes, stating that [t]he rule in this State for generations has been, and is, that `minutes' are indigenous to Courts of record; and when they are signed by a Judge, they become the highest evidence of what has been done in the Court. To determine what constitutes the entry of an order that will satisfy the requirement of Rule 4 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, we are guided by Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which pertains to new trial motions in the criminal context and provides as follows at subdivision (c)(3): In ruling on the motion for a new trial, the courton motion by either party shall make and state in the record findings of fact and conclusions of law to explain its ruling on any issue not determined by the jury. Tenn. R.Crim. P. 33(c)(3). We construe this language to mean that unless a party moves the trial court to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court's order need state only whether the motion for new trial was granted or denied. The minute entry under scrutiny in this case states that the defendant's motion for new trial was denied. Therefore, we believe that it suffices as a written order required under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c) to confer appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case. The State contends that this appeal should be dismissed even if a minute entry is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of Rule 4(c), because the trial court judge did not sign the minutes as required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 16-1-106. We disagree. The only page from the trial court minutes for August 28, 2006, that was filed with this Court was the page that included the entry regarding the defendant's case. While it is true that the particular page of the minutes extracted to supplement the appellate record does not bear the signature of the trial court judge, there is no proof that the judge did not sign the minutes on a subsequent page not included in the record before us, and we presume that the minutes were signed as required by section 16-1-106. See Hull v. Vaughn, 171 Tenn. 642, 107 S.W.2d 219, 222 (1937) (holding that even in absence of proof that chancellor signed court minutes, it must be presumed that he did so and noting that [e]very officer is presumed to have performed his duty.) There is no proof in the record that rebuts the presumption that the minutes were signed. As a final matter, although we hold that a minute entry is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction under Rule 4 in a criminal case, better practice dictates that the trial court enter a written order. Thus, we strongly encourage a trial court to enter a written order separate from the minute entry when denying a motion for new trial.