APPELLATE COURT OPINIONS

Charles Ray O’Quinn, the petitioner, appeals pursuant to Rule 3, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure, from the trial court’s dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. On July 27, 1989, the petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated rape. The offenses occurred in April or May, and in June, 1988. He received Range II sentences of 35 years in the aggregate. The petitioner contends that his convictions for aggravated rape are void because the indictment failed to allege the mens rea for that offense. See State v. Roger Dale Hill, No. 01C01-9508-CC-00267 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, June 20, 1996), rev'd, 954 S.W.2d 725 (Tenn. 1997).

The defendants, Stephen J. Udzinski and Donna Stokes a/k/a Donna Story, present a certified question of law following Udzinski’s conditional guilty plea to a Class E felony of possession of marijuana for resale and Stokes’s guilty plea to a Class A misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. Udzinski entered judicial diversion, and Stokes received a conviction and a suspended sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. Both defendants attempted to reserve the right to pursue a certified question of law of whether the search warrant under which Udzinski's house was searched was supported by probable cause. In this appeal, the defendants present that question, and the state raises the issue of whether the defendants have properly preserved the question for our review. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court on the suppression issue raised by the defendants’ certified question.

The appellant, Michael G. Rose (defendant), was convicted of driving while under the influence, second offense, a Class A misdemeanor, by a jury of his peers. The trial court sentenced the defendant to pay a $1,500 fine and serve eleven months and twenty-nine days in the Williamson County Jail. The trial court suspended all but 180 days of the sentence, and required the defendant to serve the balance of his sentence on probation. The court also revoked the defendant’s license for two years. In this court, two issues are presented for review. The defendant contends (a) the evidence contained in the record will not support a finding by a rational trier of fact that he is guilty of driving while under the influence, and (b) the trial court committed error of prejudicial dimensions by denying his motion to suppress certain statements he made to a law enforcement officer. After a thorough review of the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the law governing the issues presented for review, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

This appeal attempts to present certified questions of law pursuant to Rule 3(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The certified questions primarily involve the legality of a stop of a motor vehicle and a subsequent search and seizure resulting therefrom. Because we conclude that this matter is not properly before us, we dismiss this appeal.