Baker v. State

• Decision Date: 06 September 2013
• Docket Number: No. M2011–01381–SC–R11–PC.,M2011–01381–SC–R11–PC.
• Citation: 417 S.W.3d 428
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: Tracy Rose BAKER v. STATE of Tennessee.

417 S.W.3d 428

Tracy Rose BAKER

v.STATE of Tennessee.

No. M2011–01381–SC–R11–PC.

Supreme Court of Tennessee,

at Nashville.

May 30, 2013 Session.

Sept. 6, 2013.

William Caldwell Hancock, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Tracy Rose Baker.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General & Reporter; William E. Young, Solicitor General; James E. Gaylord, Assistant Attorney General; Clark B. Thornton, Assistant Attorney General; Ray Whitley, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

CORNELIA A. CLARK, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GARY R. WADE, C.J., and JANICE M. HOLDER, WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined.

CORNELIA A. CLARK, J.

We accepted this appeal to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to seek post-conviction relief from a judgment in a civil case finding her in criminal contempt and imposing sanctions, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29–9–102 (2012). We hold that a criminal contempt adjudication under Tennessee Code Annotated section 29–9–102 does not amount to a criminal conviction under the general criminal laws for purposes of the Post–Conviction Procedure Act. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming the dismissal of the petition.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Tracy Rose Baker, and Jeffrey D. Baker (“Husband”) were divorced on January 12, 2009. The relationship between the Bakers remained acrimonious, and a series of contempt petitions were filed by both parties over the course of the months following the divorce decree. Husband's attorney acted as prosecutor on Husband's petitions for contempt. On April 16, 2010, while the petitioner was represented by counsel, she signed an agreed order, drawn up by Husband's attorney, which was then filed by the trial court. ¹ By the April 16, 2010 order (“Agreed Order”), the petitioner: (1) agreed that she had been advised of and waived her constitutional rights as a criminal defendant; (2) acknowledged her guilt of eighteen acts of criminal contempt, including violations of various orders of protection and a temporary restraining order; (3) purported to enter a “guilty plea” to eighteen counts of willful criminal contempt, in accordance with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29–9–102; and (4) agreed to a sentence of ten days on each count, run consecutively, for a total of 180 days, to be served on probation with various conditions.²See Baker v. Baker, No. M2010–01806–COA–R3–CV, 2012 WL 764918, at *3–4 (Tenn.Ct.App. Mar. 9, 2012) (“ Baker I ”).The petitioner did not attempt to modify or set aside the Agreed Order. See Tenn. R. Civ. P. 59, 60.

On July 20, 2010, Husband filed a petition seeking to revoke the petitioner's probation, requesting an ex parte order discontinuing the petitioner's visitation with the couple's minor children, and seeking adjudications of criminal contempt against the petitioner. Husband's July 20, 2010 petition alleged numerous violations against the petitioner, including that the petitioner was continuing to engage in harassing conduct of Husband, that she had failed to attend counseling appointments, and that she had sent text messages to the minor children in violation of the Agreed Order.

On July 21, 2010, a temporary restraining order was issued against the petitioner, enjoining her from exercising any parenting time pending further orders of the court. After a hearing on August 19, 2010, the trial court signed an order on August 24, 2010, finding the petitioner in violation of her probation and ordering her to serve a 180–day sentence in the Sumner County Jail.

The petitioner appealed from the trial court's August 24, 2010 order to the Court of Appeals. Baker I, 2012 WL 764918, at *5. In her appeal, the petitioner challenged: (1) the failure of the trial judge to recuse herself; (2) the propriety of Husband's attorney acting as a private prosecutor of the contempt action; (3) the failure of the trial court to follow the mandatory procedures, as outlined in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), State v. Mackey, 553 S.W.2d 337 (Tenn.1977), and Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(b), for the original criminal contempt “guilty pleas”; and (4) the length of the sentence imposed. The Court of Appeals denied relief on the first three issues, but granted relief on the fourth issue, reducing the petitioner's sentence in confinement to thirty days. Baker I, 2012 WL 764918, at *12. In a separate concurring opinion, one member of the Court of Appeals opined that the proper procedure for attacking the criminal contempt findings in the Agreed Order was by filing a petition for post-conviction relief. Id. at *13–14 (Cottrell, J., concurring). No application for permission to appeal was filed in this Court.

The petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief on April 18, 2011, and an amended petition two days later, challenging the criminal contempt adjudications in the Agreed Order on three grounds. The petitioner first alleged that the guilty pleas to eighteen instances of contemptuous conduct should be set aside because the trial court failed to conduct a hearing to assure the knowing and voluntary nature of the guilty pleas, pursuant to the requirements of Boykin, 395 U.S. at 242–43 & n. 5, 89 S.Ct. 1709, and Mackey, 553 S.W.2d at 344. The petitioner next alleged that the trial judge was biased against her because Husband's attorney was the judge's personal lawyer, former campaign treasurer, and a substantial donor to the judge's re-election campaign. Finally, the petitioner alleged that Husband's counsel improperly acted as a private prosecutor and, in that role, abused his prosecutorial discretion by unlawfully coercing the guilty pleas and sentences and by improperly conditioning the suspended sentence on the petitioner agreeing to surrender custody of her children and sell her house to pay his “undocumented” legal fee. The record does not indicate who received copies of the petition or amended petition. The district attorney general did not respond to the petition, but Husband's counsel answered the amended petition.

The trial court ³ summarily dismissed the petition for post-conviction relief for failure to state a colorable claim under the Post–Conviction Procedure Act. SeeTenn.Code Ann. § 40–30–106(f) (2012).⁴ The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the dismissal based on its finding that the Agreed Order adjudicated the petitioner in criminal contempt pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 29–9–102, the general contempt statute, not a general criminal statute defining contemptuous conduct as a criminal offense. Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the petitioner was not entitled to seek post-conviction relief, explaining that the Post–Conviction Procedure Act encompasses only constitutional challenges to convictions for criminal offenses. Baker v. State, No. M2011–01381–CCA–R3–PC, 2012 WL 3017727, at *2–3 (Tenn.Crim.App. July 20, 2012). We granted the petitioner's application for permission to appeal.

Analysis

Standard of Review

The issue in this appeal—whether the petitioner is entitled to seek post-conviction relief from the Agreed Order—is a question of law, involving the interpretation of statutes; thus, our review is de novo with no presumption of correctness attaching to the rulings of the courts below. See Carter v. Bell, 279 S.W.3d 560, 564 (Tenn.2009).

The paramount rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent without broadening the statute beyond its intended scope. Id. at 564. We “must always begin with the words that the General Assembly has chosen” and “give these words their natural and ordinary meaning.” Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 526 (Tenn.2010). “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 (citing Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Div., 256 S.W.3d 626, 630 (Tenn.2008)). Statutes should be construed in a reasonable manner “ ‘which avoids statutory conflict and provides for harmonious operation of the laws.’ ” Frye v. Blue Ridge Neuroscience Ctr., P.C., 70 S.W.3d 710, 716 (Tenn.2002) (quoting Carver v. Citizen Utils. Co., 954 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tenn.1997)).

Post–Conviction Procedure

Prior to 1967, habeas corpus was the primary remedy available in Tennessee for obtaining post-conviction relief from a criminal conviction. The scope of habeas corpus relief in Tennessee was, and continues to be, narrow, providing relief only if a judgment of criminal conviction is facially void or a term of imprisonment has expired. See, e.g., Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn.2011) (discussing the history and current status of habeas corpus in Tennessee); House v. State, 911 S.W.2d 705 (Tenn.1995) (same); Archer v. State, 851 S.W.2d 157 (Tenn.1993) (same). Post-conviction remedies available in other states were also historically narrow in scope. House, 911 S.W.2d at 708–09 (citing Note, State Criminal Procedure and Federal Habeas Corpus, 80 Harv. L.Rev. 422 (1966)). As a result, persons convicted in state courts utilized federal habeas corpus petitions as the primary means of challenging state criminal convictions. See Case v. Nebraska, 381 U.S. 336, 338, 85 S.Ct. 1486, 14 L.Ed.2d 422 (1965) (per curiam) (Clark, J., concurring). The sheer volume of federal habeas corpus petitions filed by state inmates, as well as principles of comity, eventually led the United States Supreme Court to suggest that states enact statutory post-conviction procedures, which would afford state inmates an avenue to litigate alleged constitutional errors in state courts, at least in the first instance. See Id. at 339–40, 85 S.Ct. 1486.

The Tennessee General Assembly responded to this suggestion in 1967 by...