STATE OF TENNESSEE v. AMANDA JEAN PHILLIPS (2024)

ORDER

This case came before the Court upon the application for permission to appeal of the defendant, Amanda Jean Phillips. For the reasons set forth below, we summarily grant the application, reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and remand the matter to the Scott County Criminal Court for the entry of corrected judgments.

A Scott County jury convicted the defendant of one count of aggravated kidnapping, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated child neglect, and one count of carjacking. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an effective thirty-year sentence. The assistant district attorney prepared the judgment forms as directed by statute. However, due to oversight or mistake, the judgments were entered without review by the defendant's counsel and without notice to counsel that the judgments had been entered. As a result of the mistake, the defendant did not timely file a motion for new trial. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33(b) (a motion for new trial must be filed within thirty days of the entry of judgment).

Upon learning that the judgments had been entered, the defendant filed a motion to “Set Aside, Amend and/or Correct Improper and Unlawful Judgments.” After a hearing that focused primarily on whether the judgments were void, the trial court concluded the judgments were not void and, therefore, it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the voidness arguments because Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure “does not provide an appeal as of right from a trial court's denial of a motion to ‘set aside’ or ‘amend’ a judgment” due to an alleged noncompliance with a statute or local rule. State v. Phillips, No. E2022-01699-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 6144477, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 20, 2023). The intermediate court also concluded any claim for relief under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 was waived for failure to specifically mention Rule 36 in the motion or at the motion hearing. Id.¹ Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal.

The defendant asks this Court to grant her application and conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in its jurisdiction and waiver conclusions. Our focus in this application is whether the trial court could have construed the defendant's motion as a motion to correct the judgments pursuant to Rule 36 despite inartful drafting, and whether review of the Rule 36 issue is waived as determined by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Rule 36 authorizes a trial court “at any time” to “correct clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36. However, Rule 36 is not a vehicle to remedy a substantive or judicial error. See, e.g., State v. Lewis, 917 S.W.2d 251, 256 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995). As explained in Corpus Juris Secundum, the primary distinction between clerical mistakes and substantive errors is that “the former consist of blunders in execution whereas the latter consist of instances where the court changes its mind, either because it made a legal or factual mistake in making its original determination, or because on second thought it has decided to exercise its discretion in a manner different from the way it was exercised in its original determination. Stated plainly, the distinction between a clerical error and a judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered.” 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 368, Westlaw (database updated March 2024) (emphasis added).

In this case, the mistake relates to the entry of the judgment documents and the provision of completed judgments to the defendant upon their entry. After a defendant is sentenced, the district attorney general must complete and file within thirty days the uniform judgment documents for the convictions “signed by all parties.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-209(e)(1). If the judgments are not signed by the parties, the clerk must make a copy of the documents available to the parties before entry by the court. Id.² To that end, the uniform judgment document provides for use of a clerk certification, indicating a copy of the judgment was made available prior to entry to any party who did not sign the judgment document. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 17. A defendant has thirty days from entry of the uniform judgment documents to file her motion for new trial. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 33.

The record reflects that the judgment documents in this case contain neither the signature of defense counsel nor a completed certification by the clerk. At the hearing on the defendant's motion, the assistant district attorney described her efforts to notify defense counsel via text and email that the uniform judgment documents were ready for review. The in-court discussion suggests the emails were inadvertently sent to counsel's old email address. Nothing in the record indicates whether the clerk made copies of the judgment documents available to counsel before entry by the court or explains why the certification was blank despite the absence of defense counsel's signature. Most significantly, defense counsel informed the trial court that he did not receive a copy of the judgments before they were entered and that he learned of their entry after the time for filing a motion for new trial had expired. The trial court appeared to accredit defense counsel's assertions, but the court remained focused on whether the judgments were void, remarking that it had no authority to amend valid judgments if they were not void.³

Under these unusual circumstances, we respectfully must disagree with the trial court. The mistake in this instance was indeed a clerical mistake or “blunder in execution” subject to correction under Rule 36. Upon learning of the mistake, the defendant filed an all-encompassing motion, including a request to “correct” the judgments, in an attempt to protect her right to file a motion for new trial and pursue a meaningful direct appeal. The trial court should have construed the pleading as a Rule 36 motion and entered corrected judgments to rectify the clerical mistake. Likewise, the Court of Criminal Appeals, although understandably cautious due to the minimal record and the broadly-titled motion, could have reviewed the issue despite the inartful drafting rather than deeming the issue waived simply because the defendant failed to reference Rule 36 in her motion. Furthermore, in its alternative ruling, the Court of Criminal Appeals offered a narrow interpretation of Rule 36 that focused on the technical accuracy of the judgment documents and, in so doing, failed to appreciate that clerical mistakes include “blunders in execution” such as those evidenced here. See Phillips, 2023 WL 6144477 at *5 n.5. As a consequence of the clerical mistake and the lower courts’ rejection of any form of relief, the defendant has been deprived of an opportunity to file a motion for new trial and pursue a direct appeal.⁴

Upon our review, we conclude that due to this inadvertent clerical mistake, the judgment documents were entered without timely notice to defense counsel. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals, and we remand to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments containing the proper signatures or a completed clerk certification in the absence of any signature. The defendant shall have thirty days from the entry of the corrected judgments to file a motion for new trial ⁵ and thereafter pursue her direct appeal in accordance with the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Costs are taxed to the State of Tennessee.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 provides that “the court may at any time correct clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36. When a trial court enters a corrected judgment or denies a Rule 36 motion, “the defendant or the state may initiate an appeal as of right pursuant to [Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure] 3.” Id.

2.   The defendant also relied on the Local Rules of Practice of the Eighth Judicial District, which have no bearing on our decision.

3.   We observe from the transcript of the motion hearing that the assistant district attorney general did not oppose the entry of amended judgments thereby allowing the defendant to pursue her motion for new trial. Again, the trial court rejected the State's concession, concluding the judgments were not void and therefore it had no jurisdiction to allow amended or corrected judgments to be entered.

4.   Further, if we adhere to the June 2, 2022 entry date of the judgments (and two dismissed appeals), the defendant likely has missed her opportunity to seek a delayed appeal via post-conviction proceedings. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-113; Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28, § 9(D).

5.   We are mindful that a Rule 36 motion cannot be used tactically to toll the time for filing a motion for new trial or notice of appeal as to the underlying convictions. We summarily grant relief in this instance because the correctable oversight itself caused the defendant to miss the time for filing a timely motion for new trial.

PER CURIAM