State v. Tolle

Decision Date27 November 2019
Docket NumberNo. E2017-00571-SC-R11-CD,E2017-00571-SC-R11-CD
Citation591 S.W.3d 539
Parties STATE of Tennessee v. Michael Eugene TOLLE
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Mark E. Stephens, District Public Defender, and Jonathan Harwell, Assistant District Public Defender, for the appellant, Michael Eugene Tolle.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrée Sophia Blumstein, Solicitor General; Nicholas W. Spangler, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Ashley McDermott, 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 third 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 2012, before the amended version of the statute took effect, Michael Eugene Tolle, the defendant, pleaded guilty to theft of property in the amount of more than $500 but less than $1,000, a Class E felony at the time of the offense, and he was sentenced accordingly. In 2017, following the revocation of his probation, the trial court applied the amended version of the statute, which graded theft in the amount of $1,000 or less as a Class A misdemeanor, and imposed a Class A misdemeanor sentence. The State appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals, after determining that it had authority to consider the issue raised by the State, vacated the sentence and remanded for entry of a sentence reflecting his conviction for a Class E 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 revocation order, and (2) whether the defendant, who was originally sentenced under the prior version of the statute, may benefit from the lesser punishment under the amended version of the theft grading statute following the revocation of his probation. We conclude that, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, the intermediate appellate court acquired jurisdiction of the State’s claim when the defendant, in effect, filed a Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. In addition, while 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 exceeded its authority in modifying the offense class and sentence pursuant to the amended version of the statute following the revocation of his probation. 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 August 2012, the defendant pleaded guilty in the Knox County Criminal Court to two counts of theft: theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000 (Count 1), which then constituted a Class E felony; and theft of property valued at $500 or less (Count 2), which constituted a Class A misdemeanor. In accordance with his plea agreement with the State, the defendant was sentenced to concurrent sentences of two years for Count 1 and eleven months, twenty-nine days for Count 2 to be served in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On December 22, 2012, the defendant was placed on determinate release probation.1 Six months later, a probation violation warrant alleged that the defendant had violated the terms of his release.

On May 27, 2014, the defendant was taken into custody in South Carolina, where he remained until December 2016. On December 23, 2016, the defendant was transferred to Jefferson County, Tennessee, where he faced charges of burglary and theft, to which he pleaded guilty in exchange for a three-year sentence. The defendant was then transferred to Knox County to answer the 2013 probation violation warrant.

Concerning the warrant, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss in which he primarily argued that the State’s failure to prosecute while he was incarcerated in South Carolina violated his right to a speedy trial. In the alternative, the defendant requested that his sentence reflect the amendments to the theft grading statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105(a), and that he be granted credit for time served in South Carolina. The defendant cited to the Public Safety Act of 2016, which amended the theft grading statute, effective January 1, 2017. He noted that under the amended version of the theft grading statute, his 2012 conviction for theft of property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000 would constitute a Class A misdemeanor, rather than a Class E felony. Therefore, the defendant argued, pursuant to the Criminal Savings Statute, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-112, "[the defendant] is entitled to be punished under the new, more lenient regime."

The trial court held a revocation hearing on February 23, 2017, at which the defendant conceded that he violated the terms of his probation; however, he again argued that the probation violation warrant should be dismissed for the reasons outlined in his motion to dismiss. Notably, the defendant pointed to Rule 35 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the trial court’s authority to reduce the defendant’s sentence within 120 days of his probation revocation. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35 (a) ("The trial court may reduce a sentence upon motion filed within 120 days after the date the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked.").

The State argued that the delay in a hearing occurred as a result of the defendant’s own misconduct, which led to his incarceration in South Carolina, and thus, no speedy trial violation had occurred. The State also opposed the defendant’s request for resentencing under the amended theft grading statute, arguing that the Criminal Savings Statute does not apply to sentencing following a probation revocation. The State further contended that the defendant was not entitled to credit for time spent incarcerated in South Carolina.

In its order entered on February 24, 2017, the trial court found that the defendant had violated the terms of his probation and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court found the defendant’s speedy trial claim to be without merit but elected to reduce the defendant’s sentence to eleven months, twenty-nine days for a Class A misdemeanor. The defendant was not granted credit for his time served in South Carolina but did receive credit for time served in Knox County.

The State filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s decision to reduce the defendant’s sentence, citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-402 as its statutory basis for the right to appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeals determined that the State’s appeal was improperly filed but elected to treat the appeal as a petition for the common law writ of certiorari. State v. Tolle , No. E2017-00571-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 1661616, at *6-7 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 2018), perm. app. granted (Tenn. Aug. 9, 2018). After determining that the trial court erred in altering the class of the conviction offense following the revocation of the defendant’s probation, the intermediate appellate court vacated the trial court’s order modifying the defendant’s sentence to eleven months, twenty-nine days for a Class A misdemeanor. Id. at *11.

II. ISSUES PRESENTED

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

1. Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in considering the State’s appeal of the trial court’s application of the Criminal Savings Statute in altering the class of the conviction offense under the amendments to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105 following the revocation of the defendant’s probation.
2. Whether the defendant, who was originally sentenced under the prior version of the statute, may benefit from the lesser punishment under the amended version of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105 following the revocation of his probation.

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • State v. Deberry
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • August 30, 2022
    ...a defendant's sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, we review that decision for abuse of discretion. State v. Tolle , 591 S.W.3d 539, 545 (Tenn. 2019). But to the extent the trial court's decision turns on the interpretation and application of the criminal savings statute,......
  • State v. McKenzie
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 23, 2022
    ... ... date but defendant was sentenced after the effective date) ... cf. Keese, 591 S.W.3d at 84 (Savings Statute ... inapplicable where defendant was convicted and sentenced ... before effective date of the amendments to the theft grading ... statute); State v. Tolle, 591 S.W.3d 539, 545-46 ... (Tenn. 2019) (Savings Statute did not apply to authorize ... trial court to sentence defendant to a reduced grade of the ... convicted offense under amendment to theft grading statute ... upon revocation of defendant's probation). Furthermore, ... ...
  • State v. Deberry
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • August 30, 2022
    ... ...          II ...          A ...          When a ... trial court reduces a defendant's sentence under ... Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35, we review that ... decision for abuse of discretion. State v. Tolle , ... 591 S.W.3d 539, 545 (Tenn. 2019). But to the extent the trial ... court's decision turns on the interpretation and ... application of the criminal savings statute, our review is de ... novo with no presumption of correctness. See id. at ... 543-46; see also ... ...
  • State v. Glavin, M2020-01125-CCA-R3-CO
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 20, 2021
    ... ... agree with the State ... When ... reviewing issues of statutory construction, we conduct a de ... novo review of the trial court's rulings with no ... presumption of correctness. State v. Welch, 595 ... S.W.3d 615, 621 (Tenn. 2020); State v. Tolle, 591 ... S.W.3d 539, 543 (Tenn. 2019). The court's role in ... interpreting a statute is to carry out legislative intent ... without broadening or restricting the statute beyond its ... intended scope. Welch, 595 S.W.3d at 621; State ... v. Howard, 504 S.W.3d 260, 269 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT