Nashville, TN – The Tennessee Supreme Court issued two opinions today clarifying how an appeal of a “certified question of law” should work. Typically, pleading guilty means giving up the right to appeal a conviction. However, Tennessee law long has allowed a defendant to appeal a specific legal issue, called a certified question of law, even after a guilty plea. This usually happens when a defendant seeks appellate review of a legal issue, such as a motion to suppress certain evidence, that the defendant did not prevail on in the trial court. To do this, the defendant and the State must agree upon the precise question being appealed. The appellate court can review only that question, which must clearly state the specific parameters of the legal issue. Additionally, the legal issue presented must be something that would determine the outcome of the case. These procedural requirements have been a source of confusion, and the Court’s opinions aim to clarify them.
In the first case, Union City police officers stopped a car driven by Torrian Seantel Bishop, during which an officer smelled what he believed to be marijuana. This prompted police to search the car. The search revealed a stolen handgun. Mr. Bishop was charged with theft of the handgun and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He moved the trial court to suppress the handgun, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause to search his car because they could not distinguish between the smell of illegal marijuana and that of legal hemp. The trial court denied the motion. After that ruling, Mr. Bishop and the State agreed for Mr. Bishop to plead guilty but still allowed Mr. Bishop to appeal the search issue. Looking only at the question as framed to the court, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the search issue would not determine the outcome of the case and dismissed the appeal. As a result, Mr. Bishop’s guilty plea remained in place.
In the second case, an anonymous caller reported a speeding truck to police officers in Benton, Tennessee. An officer observed a truck matching the description and followed it for a distance but did not observe any traffic violations during that time. When the driver, William Tony Burrell, eventually parked at a store, the police officer pulled in behind Mr. Burrell’s truck. After talking with Mr. Burrell, the officer determined that Mr. Burrell was intoxicated. While arresting Mr. Burrell, the officer discovered a handgun. Mr. Burrell was charged with DUI and unlawful possession of a handgun. He moved to suppress all evidence from the encounter, arguing that the officer had seized him without probable cause when the officer pulled in behind his truck. The trial court denied the motion. After that ruling, Mr. Burrell and the State agreed for Mr. Burrell to plead guilty but still allowed Mr. Burrell to appeal the seizure issue. Looking only at the question as framed to the court, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the seizure issue did not sufficiently identify the legal issue presented and dismissed the appeal. As a result, Mr. Burrell's guilty plea remained in place.
In unanimous opinions, the Supreme Court clarified and modified some of the governing principles in certified question cases. The Court held that in determining whether the question stated the specific parameters of the legal issue and whether the legal issue would determine the outcome of the case, an appellate court must consider the stated question together with the record of the proceedings in the trial court. The Court also held that, if an appellate court concludes that the certified question does not satisfy one of these requirements, it should not simply dismiss the appeal. Instead, the appellate court should remand to the trial court to give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the guilty plea. In both cases presented here, the Court concluded that the Court of Criminal Appeals had erred in dismissing the appeals under these revised principles. As a result, the Court remanded each case to the Court of Criminal Appeals to consider the merits of the certified question.
To read the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinions in State v. Bishop and State v. Burrell, each authored by Chief Justice Jeff Bivins, visit the Supreme Court opinions section of TNCourts.gov.