Brown v. Jordan
Decision Date | 06 December 2018 |
Docket Number | No. M2018-01415-SC-R23-CO,M2018-01415-SC-R23-CO |
Citation | 563 S.W.3d 196 |
Parties | Cyntoia BROWN v. Carolyn JORDAN |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Charles Mark Pickrell and Charles W. Bone, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Cyntoia Brown.
John H. Bledsoe, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Carolyn Jordan.
We accepted certification of a question of law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that requires us to determine if a defendant convicted of first-degree murder committed on or after July 1, 1995, and sentenced to life in prison under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(c)(3) will become eligible for release, and if so, after how many years. We conclude that a defendant so convicted and sentenced to life in prison under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(c)(3) may be released, at the earliest, after fifty-one years of imprisonment.
The certified question of law at issue in this appeal arises from a lawsuit Cyntoia Brown brought in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee ("District Court") pursuant to United States Code title 28, section 2254 against Vicki Freeman, Warden.1 In February 2005, then-sixteen-year-old Cyntoia Brown was charged with criminal offenses involving the 2004 shooting death of Johnny Allen. State v. Brown , No. M2007-00427-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 1038275, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 20, 2009), perm . app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 28, 2009). After a transfer hearing in juvenile court, Ms. Brown was transferred to criminal court, where her case was tried before a jury. Id. at n.3. The jury convicted her of premeditated first-degree murder, felony murder, and especially aggravated robbery. Id. at *12. The trial court merged the murder convictions and imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment to run concurrently with a twenty-year sentence for especially aggravated robbery.2 Id. at *12 n.6, *35. In its sentencing order, the trial court noted that Ms. Brown "must serve at least fifty-one (51) calendar years before she is eligible for release...."3
Ms. Brown filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, in which she claimed her life sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). The post-conviction court denied relief, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. Brown v. State , No. M2013-00825-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 5780718 (Tenn. Crim. App, Nov. 6, 2014), perm. app. denied .
Ms. Brown subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under United States Code title 28, section 2254 in the District Court, in which she alleged, inter alia , that her mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment prohibited under Miller v. Alabama. The District Court denied relief, reasoning that Miller prohibits a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders, and Ms. Brown received a life sentence, not a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Brown v. Freeman , No. 3:15-cv-00712, 2016 WL 8711705, at *8 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 28, 2016). Ms. Brown’s appeal from that decision is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which certified the following question for this Court’s consideration:
Will a defendant convicted of first-degree murder committed on or after July 1, 1995, and sentenced to life in prison under Tennessee Code Annotated [section] 39-13-202(c)(3) become eligible for release and, if so, after how many years?
Brown v. Jordan , No. M2018-01415-SC-R23-CO (Tenn. Oct. 11, 2018) (order accepting certification).
Further, the answers to these questions of law depend upon the interpretation of statutes; therefore, we apply the familiar rules of statutory construction. Shorts v. Bartholomew , 278 S.W.3d 268, 274 (Tenn. 2009). A court’s overarching purpose in construing statutes is to ascertain and effectuate legislative intent without expanding a statute beyond its intended scope. Baker v. State , 417 S.W.3d 428, 433 (Tenn. 2013). Words used in a statute "must be given their natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which they appear and in light of the statute’s general purpose." Mills v. Fulmarque, Inc. , 360 S.W.3d 362, 368 (Tenn. 2012) (citations omitted). We endeavor to construe statutes in a reasonable manner that "avoids statutory conflict and provides for harmonious operation of the laws." Baker , 417 S.W.3d at 433 (internal quotations omitted). Where statutory language is ambiguous or a statutory conflict exists, we may consider and discern legislative intent from matters other than the statutory language, "such as the broader statutory scheme, the history and purpose of the legislation, public policy, historical facts preceding or contemporaneous with the enactment of the statute, earlier versions of the statute, the caption of the act, and the legislative history of the statute." Womack v. Corr. Corp. of Am. , 448 S.W.3d 362, 366 (Tenn. 2014) (citing Pickard v. Tenn. Water Quality Control Bd. , 424 S.W.3d 511, 518 (Tenn. 2013) ). We presume that the General Assembly has knowledge of its prior enactments and knows the state of the law and the existence of other statutes relating to the same subject at the time it enacts new statutes. Shorts , 278 S.W.3d at 277 (citing Wilson v. Johnson Cnty. , 879 S.W.2d 807, 810 (Tenn. 1994) ).
The certified question concerns the interpretation and application of the Tennessee sentencing statutes governing release eligibility of criminal defendants under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-501(h) and (i). Those sections currently provide:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(h), (i).4
At first blush, it may appear that sections (h) and (i) are in conflict. Such a conclusion is not unreasonable, given the lack of clarity within the statute that could cause the subsections in question to be read as contradictory to each other. Indeed, the Tennessee Attorney General opined as much in a 1997 opinion when responding to a question about how to calculate the term of confinement for a defendant convicted of a first-degree murder committed on or after July 1, 1995. See Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. 97-098, 1997 WL 449672 (July 1, 1997). While the Attorney General correctly opined that a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment for a first-degree murder committed on or after July 1, 1995, is eligible for release, at the earliest, after service of fifty-one years, the Attorney General incorrectly concluded that a conflict exists between sections (h) and (i). Further, to the extent our opinion in Vaughn v. State , 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006), endorsed the Attorney General’s opinion that a conflict exists between these two provisions, that part of the opinion is abrogated.
Tennessee does not have indeterminate sentences for criminal offenses. Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-211 requires the imposition of a determinate sentence in all felony and misdemeanor cases.
Specific sentences for a felony shall be for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Booker
...sentence of life imprisonment is a term sentence of sixty years, with a minimum service of fifty-one years. See Brown v. Jordan , 563 S.W.3d 196, 202 (Tenn. 2018).1 I concur in the holding in the plurality opinion that Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(h)(2), when imposed on a juve......
-
Dotson v. State
...Vaughn v. State, 202 S.W.3d 106, 120 (Tenn. 2006) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687), abrogated on 54 other grounds by Brown v. Jordan, 563 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2018). To demonstrate prejudice, the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that the motion would have been granted and that......
-
Pinchon v. Washburn
...a Tennessee life sentence is 60 years in prison, with the possibility of credits reducing the time to 51 years. See Brown v. Jordan , 563 S.W.3d 196, 200–01 (Tenn. 2018) ; see also Vaughn v. State , 202 S.W.3d 106, 118–19 (Tenn. 2006) (discussing amendments to "life" statute). Thus, at the ......
-
State v. Miller
...sentence [imprisonment for life] is sixty years, as set forth in Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(h)(1)." Brown v. Jordan, 563 S.W.3d 196, 200 (Tenn. 2018). For first degree murder committed on or after July 1, 1995, as in the case sub judice, 100% of the sentence of sixty years m......