State of Tennessee v. Darryl Wilkins Burton, M2016-00690-CCA-R3-CD

On Sept. 23, 2013 Deputy Paul Lusk observed Darryl Burton’s car on Hillsboro Road at ~1:45 a.m.; video showed the vehicle cross the center line at least once, touch/drive onto the fog line and shoulder multiple times, and enter a right-turn lane after the solid line. Deputy Lusk stopped the vehicle and later charged Burton with DUI.
Burton moved to suppress, arguing the initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause; the trial court reviewed the dash-cam and testimony and denied the motion, finding at least reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
Burton entered a conditional guilty plea to first-offense DUI and attempted to reserve a certified question of law under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37 for appellate review of the suppression ruling.
The certified question was not written on the official judgment form; instead a handwritten, signed page containing the question and signatures of defense counsel and the State was attached to the judgment form.
After Burton filed a timely appeal, the State moved to dismiss, arguing the Rule 37 reservation did not meet the strict Preston/Pendergrass requirements; the Court of Criminal Appeals agreed and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Burton)	Held
Whether the traffic stop was supported by reasonable suspicion/probable cause	Stop was lawful based on lane departures, weaving, and improper turn observed by deputy	Stop was unlawful; evidence insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause	Court did not reach merits — appeal dismissed for procedural defect
Whether Burton properly reserved a dispositive certified question under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37	The reservation failed Preston requirements (judgment lacked the certified question and explicit trial-court/state consent), so appellate jurisdiction is lacking	The attached handwritten question and trial-court signature on the judgment implied consent and dispositiveness; signatures need not be on same page	Reservation was defective: judgment did not reflect the certified question or explicit consent that it was dispositive; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988) (requires the dispositive certified question and express statements of consent/dispositiveness to appear in the final order/judgment)
State v. Irwin, 962 S.W.2d 477 (Tenn. 1998) (allows a separate document to satisfy Preston if incorporated by reference or filed contemporaneously)
State v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834 (Tenn. 1996) (emphasizes defendant’s burden to ensure Preston requirements are in the final order)
State v. Armstrong, 126 S.W.3d 908 (Tenn. 2003) (rejects substantial-compliance approach; Preston requirements are explicit)
State v. Bowery, 189 S.W.3d 240 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (failure to meet Preston mandates dismissal of certified-question appeal)
State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891 (Tenn. 2008) (limiting appellate review to scope of the certified question)
State v. Harris, 280 S.W.3d 832 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (noting frequent dismissal when Preston–Pendergrass requirements are unmet)