State of Tennessee v. Michael Armstrong

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a corrective nunc pro tunc order entered before the filing of a notice of appeal, while the trial court retained jurisdiction, satisfied the requirements for appealing a certified question of law under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2). The court distinguished cases in which corrective orders were entered after the notice of appeal and rejected a substantial-compliance standard for the Preston prerequisites. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for consideration of the merits of the certified question concerning suppression of the defendant’s statements.

Holdings

1. A trial court's corrective nunc pro tunc order entered after the final judgment but before the filing of a notice of appeal may correct omissions or deficiencies under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 and satisfy the prerequisites for an appeal of a certified question of law under Rule 37(b)(2), so long as the trial court still has jurisdiction.
2. Substantial compliance with the Preston prerequisites is not sufficient; the requirements remain explicit and unambiguous.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court may use a Rule 36 corrective nunc pro tunc order entered after the final judgment but before the filing of a notice of appeal to satisfy the requirements for appealing a certified question of law under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2).
2. Whether the trial court's corrective order satisfied the requirements established in State v. Preston despite the omission of the certified question from the original final judgment.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded