Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Tennessee v. Rodney Northern - Dissenting
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2009-01969-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; July 21, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The dissenting opinion by Judge Joseph M. Tipton in the appeal State of Tennessee v. Rodney Northern argues against the majority's dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. Tipton contends that the trial court issued final orders addressing all issues, and that the absence of a comprehensive judgment document should not prevent the appellate court from reviewing the restitution matter. He references the Tennessee Supreme Court's Rule 17, which outlines the requirements for judgment documents, asserting that the existing judgment is largely complete, with the exception of the restitution statement. The dissent emphasizes that a separate order awarding the victim $10,500 in restitution is still valid, despite the majority's view that it is flawed due to the lack of a payment schedule. Tipton argues that the trial court's failure to fully comply with Rule 17 does not negate the jurisdiction of the appellate court to address the appeal. He disputes the majority's interpretation of what constitutes a "sentencing hearing," asserting that the agreement on the length of the sentence does not preclude the determination of restitution. Tipton notes that the victim's testimony provided sufficient basis for the restitution amount, detailing the victim's purchase of a Jeep Wrangler, its theft, and subsequent recovery. While he agrees that the trial court erred in not establishing a payment schedule, he concludes that the case should be remanded for this purpose rather than dismissed.