Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of criminal appeals ruling that the restitution order at issue on appeal was not a final and appealable order under Tenn. R. App. P. 3, holding that a criminal restitution order is final and appealable when it directs a defendant to pay a set amount of restitution without payment terms.Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and theft. As a condition of his probation, Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $5,500 during his supervision. Defendant appealed the restitution order, but the court of criminal appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the restitution order was not a final order because it failed to include either payment terms or a payment schedule. The Supreme Court reversed and affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding (1) the restitution order resolved all issues and was a final order under Rule 3; and (2) the trial court did not err by ordering Defendant to pay $5,5000 in restitution over his two-and-a-half-year probationary period. View "State v. Cavin" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of criminal appeals affirming Defendants' convictions of filing a lien without a reasonable basis and forgery of at least $250,000, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendants' forgery convictions and to support sentencing Defendants' convictions for forgery as a Class A felony.The five defendants in this consolidated appeal were collectively convicted of 102 counts of filing a lien without a reasonable basis, a Class E felony, and 102 counts of forgery of at least $250,000, a Class A felony. Defendants appealed their forgery convictions, arguing, among other things, that their conduct did not fit within the statutory definition of forgery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendants' forgery convictions under Tenn. Code Ann. 39-14-114(b)(1)(B); and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the classifications of Defendants' forgery convictions as Class A felonies. View "State v. Lyons" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of criminal appeals reversing Defendant's convictions and reinstated the judgments of the trial court, holding that the intermediate court erred when it stated that an involuntary confession claim is "inextricably linked" to a Miranda waiver claim such that the two inquiries can be considered together.Defendant, a juvenile at the time of the offenses, was convicted of aggravated robbery, premeditated first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree felony murder, and theft of property valued at over $10,000. Defendant was sentenced to life in prison for the murder conviction. On appeal, the court of criminal appeals reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress pretrial statement to detectives, concluding that the statement was not voluntary. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant's overall statement was voluntary, and his Miranda waiver was both knowing and voluntary; and (2) the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder. View "State v. McKinney" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's conviction and sentence for twenty-four counts of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, holding that the trial court did not err.At issue was whether the trial court erred in determining that Defendant qualified under Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-115(b)(2) as an offender whose record of criminal activity was extensive and in imposing partial consecutive sentencing for a total term of eighteen years in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in determining that Defendant qualified under Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-115(b)(2) as an offender whose record of criminal activity was extensive and in imposing partial consecutive sentencing for an effective total term of eighteen years in prison. View "State v. Perry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of criminal appeals reversing Defendant's convictions and remanding the case for a new trial based on a purported problem with the jury instructions that had not been preserved or presented properly.Defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual battery. The court of criminal appeals held that Defendant was not entitled to relief on the issues he presented but reversed and remanded the case for a new trial by finding plain error on an issue that Defendant had not raised, no party had an opportunity to address, and that turned out to be a mere clerical error by the trial court clerk's office. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Defendant's convictions, holding that the court of criminal appeals abused its discretion by granting relief on an unpreserved and unpresented issue without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard on the matter. View "State v. Bristol" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of criminal appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of premeditated first-degree murder and especially aggravated robbery, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.After he was convicted Defendant filed a motion for a new trial alleging that four instances of improper prosecutorial closing argument, which he failed to object to at trial, constituted reversible error. The court of criminal appeals affirmed after reviewing Defendant's claims under the plain error doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) plain error review was the appropriate standard in this case; and (2) Defendant was not entitled to relief via the plain error doctrine. View "State v. Enix" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that a statute that repeals a criminal offense does not "provide for a lesser penalty" within the meaning of the criminal savings statute, but rather, a person who commits an offense that is later repealed should be convicted and sentenced under the law in effect when the offense was committed.Defendant was convicted of multiple traffic-related offenses, including driving after being declared a motor vehicle habitual offender (MVHO), in violation of the Motor Vehicle Habitual Offenders Act (MVHO Act), Tenn. Code Ann. 55-10-616(a). Before Defendant was sentenced, the legislature passed and the Governor signed into law the MVHO Repeal Act, which repealed the MVHO Act. After the MVHO Repeal Act went into effect Defendant was sentenced under the MVHO Act. The trial court subsequently entered an amended judgment retaining Defendant's conviction but imposing no punishment. The Supreme Court reversed and reinstated Defendant's original sentence, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Defendant's Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35 motion based on an erroneous based on an erroneous interpretation of the criminal savings statute. View "State v. Deberry" on Justia Law

Phillips was convicted of offenses, including felony murder, attempted first-degree murder, aggravated rape, especially aggravated kidnapping, and especially aggravated burglary. The Court of Criminal Appeals modified the especially aggravated burglary conviction to aggravated burglary. Phillips sought post-conviction relief, asserting that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective by failing to seek suppression of various statements he made to police. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial of relief.The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying the petitioner’s burden to establish prejudice when he alleges counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds: The petitioner must prove that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence. Despite the Fourth Amendment concerns brought about by the Memphis Police Department’s use of a 48-hour hold policy, there is no proof that the probable cause determination was unreasonably delayed and Phillips’s arrest was supported by probable cause. Given the proof of his guilt, Phillips has not established a reasonable probability that his verdict would have been different had his statements to the police been suppressed. View "Phillips v. State of Tennessee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the trial court convicting and sentencing Defendant for multiple drug offenses that occurred in a drug-free zone within 1,000 feet of a city park, holding that the offenses were subject to the requirement to serve in full at least the minimum sentence for the appropriate range prior to release.Because Defendant's offenses occurred in a drug-free zone, the trial court imposed sentences that required full service of at least the minimum term within the appropriate sentencing range prior to release. The court of criminal appeals concluded sua sponte that the felony class reflected on the judgment for one conviction was incorrect. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed the judgments of the trial court, holding (1) because the drug-free zone related to a public park, the offenses were not subject to a one-class enhancement; but (2) the offenses were subject to the requirement to serve in full at least the minimum sentence for the appropriate range prior to release. View "State v. Linville" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) lacked the authority to refuse to comply with a final expungement order issued by the trial court.After Plaintiff had successfully completed probation he petitioned for expungement of his records and paid the expungement fee. The trial judge entered an expunction order. After the order became final, Plaintiff learned that the TBI had continued to report the existence of one of the expunged charged offenses. Plaintiff sued the TBI seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court declined to grant either party's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The Supreme Court reversed and granted Plaintiff's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, holding that Plaintiff's expunction order was res judicata and binding on the TBI. View "Recipient of Final Expunction Order v. Rausch" on Justia Law