When I first started practicing law, I spent most Saturday mornings reading the new cases from the Tennessee Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals, in addition to the advance sheets and summaries that related to criminal law. Back then, I had (or made) a lot more time for studying than I do now. The amount of available information has grown exponentially, but I still benefit from the fact that I can recall cases and names from the early and mid-1990s. Even if you can’t read every word of every new Tennessee opinion, there are some developments every year that you need to remember. That’s the purpose of this issue’s column.

Let’s look at five cases from the past year you really need to know if you have any interest in criminal law. I recommend that you at least read these five cases from the Tennessee Supreme Court, because a summary won’t do them justice. I’ll briefly note why I chose these cases, but what I’m recommending is that you read these cases and not rely on me.

1. Mandatory Life for Juveniles Unconstitutional

Because of the constitutional issues regarding punishment for juveniles, State of Tennessee v. Tyshon Booker is the most interesting case of the past year for me.¹ Booker was convicted of felony-murder arising from a robbery that occurred when he was only 16 years old. The trial court sentenced him to an automatic life sentence. Although no one has ever been released under this version of the statute, parole eligibility would not occur for approximately 51 years. In an opinion by Justice Sharon Lee, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that an automatic life sentence with no consideration of the juvenile’s age or circumstances is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. Based on statutes still on the books, the court held that the remedy is that the juvenile offender would receive an individualized parole hearing after serving between 25 and 36 years.

2. Juvenile Confessions

In State of Tennessee v. Kemontea Dovon McKinney, the Tennessee Supreme Court examined in great detail the difference between a claim that a juvenile’s statement was involuntary and a claim that there was a Miranda violation.² The juvenile defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, premeditated first degree murder and felony murder arising from a killing that took place during a car theft. One fascinating thing about the case is that the police used OnStar to track the stolen car. But the reason to read this case is that it is now the case that sets out the standards for evaluating the admissibility of a juvenile’s statement, whether the claim is that the statement was involuntary because the juvenile’s will was overborne or because the Miranda warnings were not given properly.

3.AOC and Chief Justice Can Deny Funding Authorized by Trial Court — No Appeal

No one seriously contests the fact that counsel who are appointed under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 13 are grossly underpaid. As a result, there is an untenable difference in the resources available to a defendant who has appointed private counsel and someone who is represented by retained counsel or the public defender. There are also strict requirements for obtaining expert funding under Rule 13. In Dotson v. State, the court held that the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the chief justice can deny or cut funding authorized by the trial court, and that those decisions are not appealable.³

Dotson had been convicted of first-degree murder. In the post-conviction proceeding, the trial court had found a particularized need for experts, including a psychiatrist, a neurologist, a false confession expert that trial counsel had consulted but not called and a neuropsychologist who had also been consulted before trial. Under Rule 13, the AOC either cut the rates to something the witness would not accept or denied the funding. The chief justice approved the cuts/denials. The Supreme Court held that the AOC and chief justice do not perform substantive review and there is no appeal of those decisions to deny funding. There are several reasons I’m recommending reading this. If you haven’t ever done appointed work, the discussion of Rule 13 is enlightening — everyone needs to know the process that appointed counsel go through. Also, (and this is an oversimplification) for the past 20 years, federal courts have strongly deferred to state courts on habeas review, generally not even allowing evidentiary hearings. That issue will be subject to additional litigation, especially if a petitioner hasn’t had the opportunity to develop expert testimony that the trial court found was justified.

4. Gang Enhancement in Action

The sentencing enhancement for gang membership has a somewhat tortured history. It has been declared unconstitutional, revised and is now in effect. The court’s opinion in State v. Shackleford shows the revised enhancement in action.⁴ In this case, the Court of Criminal Appeals had reversed the gang enhancement because the notice had been that the individuals were Crips when in fact most of those involved were in subsets of the gang. The Supreme Court held that the proof and the notice were sufficient. It is interesting to see how the State proves gang activity. A sheriff’s office detective who works in gang intelligence and is a member of the “Tennessee Gang Investigators Association” has developed an assessment that declares someone a gang member if they score 10 or more points. The indictment showed that the Crips engaged in the required pattern of criminal gang activity by listing 15 convictions of others who were involved with various sub-groups of the Crips. One of the points indicating gang membership was the use of the term “cuz” on social media.

5. Definition of Forgery and High Level of Loss from Fake Liens

For several years, various groups have targeted public officials and others by filing bogus liens claiming security interests in the victims’ property, making it impossible to convey the property. In State of Tennessee v. Ronald Lyons et al., the Supreme Court affirmed forgery convictions against all the defendants, who had claimed that the liens did not fit the statutory definition of forgery.⁵ The case is a must-read, not just for the elements of forgery but also for the factual issues; it illustrates the seriousness of the offense because the aggregated amounts involved sustained Class A felony convictions because there was more than $250,000 in loss. Although the defendants did not actually transfer or obtain any of the victims’ property, it was enough to satisfy the statute that the apparent value of the liens was greater than $250,000.

This column is not meant to be an academic exploration of these important cases, but I hope it will inspire you to take a few minutes to examine them, reflect on how these issues got to the court and consider what it might mean for your practice. |||

WADE DAVIES is the managing partner at Ritchie, Davies, Johnson & Stovall PC in Knoxville. He is a 1993 graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Law. The majority of his practice has always been devoted to criminal defense. Davies is a member of the Tennessee Bar Journal Editorial Board. 

NOTES

1. State v. Booker, 656 S.W.3d 49 (Tenn. 2022), www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/tyshon_booker_-_majority_opinion.pdf.
2. State v. McKinney, 669 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. 2023), www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%202020-950-SC.pdf.
3. Dotson v. State, 673 S.W.3d 204 (Tenn. 2023), www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/J.DOTSON-Majority%20Opinion.pdf.
4. State v. Shackleford, 673 S.W.3d 243 (Tenn. 2023), www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/SHACKLEFORD%20-%20Majority%20Opinion_0.pdf.
5. State v. Lyons, 669 S.W.3d 775 (Tenn. 2023), www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/Majority%20Opinion%202019-1946-SC.pdf.