State of Tennessee v. Torrian Seantel Bishop

In this appeal, we address the requirement that a certified question of law reserved for appeal as part of a conditional guilty plea under Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure be “dispositive of the case.” Police stopped Torrian Seantel Bishop for driving on a suspended license and smelled what they believed to be marijuana. A search of his car yielded a stolen handgun. The trial court denied a motion to suppress the handgun, finding that the smell of marijuana provided probable cause to search the car. Thereafter, Mr. Bishop negotiated an agreement with the State under which he entered a conditional guilty plea but reserved for appellate review a certified question of law challenging whether there was probable cause to search his car. The basis for the challenge was the admitted inability of police to distinguish between the smell of illegal marijuana and that of legal hemp. The Court of Criminal Appeals initially affirmed the judgment of the trial court, but this Court remanded for reconsideration after we released our decision in State v. Green, 697 S.W.3d 634 (Tenn. 2024) (addressing the impact of the legalization of hemp on the probable-cause analytical framework). State v. Bishop, No. W2023-00713 CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 1564346, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 11, 2024), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Sep. 12, 2024) (remanding for reconsideration) (“Bishop I”). On reconsideration, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the certified question was not “dispositive of the case,” as required under Rule 37(b)(2)(A), and dismissed the appeal. State v. Bishop, No. W2023-00713-CCA-R3-CD, 2024 WL 4798895, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2024), perm. app. granted, (Tenn. Mar. 14, 2025) (“Bishop II”). We granted review and requested that the parties also address potential revisions to the procedure and analysis for appeals involving certified questions. After careful consideration, we hold that the best practice for a certified question before the trial court includes an on-the-record colloquy to aid in determining whether the question is dispositive of the case. We also hold that if an appellate court determines that a certified question is not dispositive of the case, the court cannot consider the appeal but should vacate the judgment of the trial court to give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw the conditional guilty plea that attempted to reserve the question. As for the decision in this case, we conclude that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in determining that the certified question was not dispositive in light of our recent decision in Green. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand this case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.