State v. Keese

591 S.W.3d 75

STATE of Tennessee

v.Charles KEESE

No. E2016-02020-SC-R11-CD

Supreme Court of Tennessee, AT KNOXVILLE.

May 7, 2019 Session

FILED November 27, 2019

Brennan M. Wingerter (on appeal) and Dustin Dunham (at trial), Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charles Preston Keese.¹

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; and Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and TaKisha Fitzgerald, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Roger A. Page, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Jeffrey S. Bivins, C.J., and Cornelia A. Clark, Sharon G. Lee, and Holly Kirby, JJ., joined.

Roger A. Page, J.

This is the second in a succession of three cases concerning Section 5 of the Public Safety Act of 2016, which took effect on January 1, 2017, and amended Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105, the statute providing for grading of theft offenses. In 2016, before the amended version of the statute took effect, Charles Keese, the defendant, was convicted of theft of property in the amount of $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, a Class D felony at the time of the offense. In sentencing the defendant before the amendment’s effective date, the trial court applied the amended version of the statute, which graded theft of more than $1,000 but less than $2,500 as a Class E felony, and sentenced the defendant accordingly. Both the State and the defendant filed notices of appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals, after determining that appellate jurisdiction over the sentencing issue raised by the State was proper, vacated the sentence and remanded for entry of a sentence reflecting a conviction of a Class D felony. We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal in this case in order to consider (1) whether the State had the right to appeal the trial court’s sentencing decision, and (2) whether the Criminal Savings Statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-112, should apply to the amendments of the theft grading statute where, as here, the offense occurred and the defendant was sentenced before the statute’s effective date. We conclude that the State had a statutory right to appeal the sentence pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-402(b)(1). In addition, we agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals’ determination that the Criminal Savings Statute applies to the amendments to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105. We also agree with its ultimate conclusion that the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant under the amended version of the statute prior to its effective date. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand to the trial court for the entry of a modified judgment consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In June 2015, a Knox County Grand Jury charged the defendant with six counts of theft for offenses that occurred during a five-day period in September 2014. On the dates in question, the defendant went to East Town Wal-Mart, where he placed several tool sets in a shopping cart. On those occasions, the defendant then wheeled the cart out of the store without paying for the items. Counts 1 and 2 of the indictment charged the defendant with alternate counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000, and Counts 3-4 and 5-6, respectively, charged the defendant with separate alternate counts of theft of property valued more than $500 but less than $1,000.

The jury returned guilty verdicts on all six counts.² The trial court, however, merged³ all six counts into one conviction under Count 1 for theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000.

On August 26, 2016,⁴ the trial court held a sentencing hearing at which the defendant stipulated his status as a career offender. However, the parties disagreed on the class of the offense. The defendant argued that his offense constituted a Class E felony. At the time the defendant committed the offense, theft of property valued at $1,000 or more but less than $10,000 constituted a Class D felony. But, the defendant pointed to the Public Safety Act of 2016, which went into effect on January 1, 2017, and amended the theft grading statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105(a). According to the defendant, the Criminal Savings Statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-112, required the court to sentence him under the amended statute for Class E felony theft.

The State, however, argued that the defendant should not be sentenced pursuant to the amended statute because "[t]he new act creates a different offense that is not in effect right now." It asserted, therefore, that the offense constituted a Class D felony and that the defendant should be sentenced accordingly.

Although the Public Safety Act of 2016 had not yet become effective, the trial court agreed with the defendant that the Criminal Savings Statute applied to the defendant’s case. On October 24, 2016, the court imposed a six-year sentence under the amended version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105(a) for Class E felony theft.

Both the State and the defendant appealed. On October 3, 2016, the State submitted a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s sentencing decision. The defendant then filed a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure challenging the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. On January 13, 2017, after his motion was denied, the defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the defendant’s conviction but vacated the sentence imposed by the trial court and remanded for entry of a twelve-year sentence, reflecting the appropriate sentence for a Class D felony. State v. Keese , No. E2016-02020-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1353697, at *12 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 15, 2018), perm. app. granted (Tenn. Aug. 9, 2018).

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

We granted the defendant’s application for permission to appeal⁵ in order to consider the following issues:

1. Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that the State had the right to appeal the trial court’s application of the Criminal Savings Statute in sentencing the defendant for theft offenses that were committed before the effective date of the amendments to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105.

2. Whether the amendments to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105 are applicable when both the offense and sentencing occurred before the amendments’ effective date.

For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

III. ANALYSIS

At the outset, we note that this case involves multiple issues of statutory construction. As issues involving statutory construction present questions of law, we review such questions de novo with no presumption of correctness. State v. Dycus , 456 S.W.3d 918, 924 (Tenn. 2015) (citing State v. Springer , 406 S.W.3d 526, 532-33 (Tenn. 2013) ; State v. Marshall , 319 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tenn. 2010) ; State v. Wilson , 132 S.W.3d 340, 341 (Tenn. 2004) ); Carter v. Bell , 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn. 2009).

When engaging in statutory interpretation, "well-defined precepts apply." State v. McNack , 356 S.W.3d 906, 908 (Tenn. 2011). "The most basic principle of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the legislative intent without unduly restricting or expanding a statute’s coverage beyond its intended scope." Owens v. State , 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995) (citing State v. Sliger , 846 S.W.2d 262, 263 (Tenn. 1993) ); Carter , 279 S.W.3d at 564 (citing State v. Sherman , 266 S.W.3d 395, 401 (Tenn. 2008) ). In construing statutes, Tennessee law provides that courts are to avoid a construction that leads to absurd results. Tennessean v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville , 485 S.W.3d 857, 872 (Tenn. 2016). "Furthermore, the ‘common law is not displaced by a legislative enactment, except to the extent required by the statute itself.’ " Wlodarz v. State , 361 S.W.3d 490, 496 (Tenn. 2012) (quoting Houghton v. Aramark Educ. Res., Inc. , 90 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tenn. 2002) ), abrogated on other grounds by , Frazier v. State , 495 S.W.3d 246 (Tenn. 2016). "When statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we must apply its plain meaning in its normal and accepted use, without a forced interpretation that would extend the meaning of the language...." Carter , 279 S.W.3d at 564 (citations omitted).

A. Jurisdiction

We first consider, as we must, whether this Court is authorized to hear the case before us. Concerning the State’s right to appeal in a criminal case, this Court has previously explained:

Under the common law, as understood and applied in the United States, neither a state nor the United States had a right to appeal in a criminal prosecution, unless the right is expressly conferred by a constitutional provision or by statute. Arizona v. Manypenny , 451 U.S. 232, 246, 101 S.Ct. 1657, 68 L.Ed.2d 58 (1981) ; United States v. Sanges , 144 U.S. 310, 312, 12 S.Ct. 609, 36 L.Ed. 445 (1892) ; State v. Reynolds , 5 Tenn. (4 Hayw.) 110, 110 (1817). A general grant of appellate jurisdiction does not satisfy this requirement. United States v. Sanges , 144 U.S. at 322–23, 12 S.Ct. 609 ; State v. Reynolds , 5 Tenn. (4 Hayw.) at 110–11. When a statute affords a state or the United States the right to an appeal in a criminal proceeding, the statute will be strictly construed to apply only to the circumstances defined in the statute. Carroll v. United States , 354 U.S. 394, 400, 77 S.Ct. 1332, 1 L.Ed.2d 1442 (1957) ; State v. Adler , 92 S.W.3d 397, 400 (Tenn. 2002).

State v. Meeks , 262 S.W.3d 710, 718 (Tenn. 2008).

The State first filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals citing Rule 3 of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure as the basis for its right to appeal the trial court’s judgment.⁶

The Court of Criminal...