City of Milan, TN v. Frederick H. Agee
W2024-00200-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 2, 2025Background
- District Attorney General (DA) Agee threatened to stop prosecuting cases in the municipal courts of Milan and Trenton unless the cities funded an additional prosecutorial position for his office.
- DA Agee interpreted Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-7-103(1) as conditioning his duty to prosecute municipal court cases on the cities' provision of "prosecutorial personnel."
- The cities filed suit seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory judgment to compel Agee to prosecute municipal court cases, arguing they had already provided 'sufficient personnel.'
- The trial court ruled in favor of the cities, finding the statute did not require provision of prosecutorial personnel, and issued both declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus against the DA.
- Agee appealed, contending the statute required prosecutorial personnel and that the writ of mandamus was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-7-103(1) require municipalities to provide prosecutorial personnel for DA to prosecute cases in municipal court? | Cities: "Sufficient personnel" means court staff, not prosecutors; cities already provide bailiffs and clerks. | Agee: "Sufficient personnel" means prosecutorial staff; duty to prosecute is triggered only if cities provide a prosecutor. | No; "sufficient personnel" refers to court staff, not prosecutorial personnel. DA's duty is not conditioned on cities funding prosecutors. |
| Is DA Agee's duty to prosecute cases in municipal court discretionary and beyond compulsion by mandamus? | DA’s discretion is in how, not whether, to prosecute; refusal to prosecute for lack of city prosecutor exceeds discretion. | DA has ultimate discretion over prosecutorial duties, including choice not to prosecute in municipal court. | Duty to prosecute is mandatory, not wholly discretionary; discretion lies only in performance, not in refusal to act entirely. |
| Was issuance of writ of mandamus appropriate given availability of other remedies? | Mandamus appropriate to compel statutory duty when no adequate alternative remedy exists. | Declaratory judgment provides adequate and equivalent remedy, making mandamus improper. | Mandamus improper because declaratory judgment was equally effective; trial court affirmed only in granting declaratory relief. |
| Have the cities already provided “sufficient personnel” under the statute? | Yes; stipulated to providing necessary court staff. | Disputed, arguing only prosecutorial staff satisfies statute. | Yes; parties stipulated that cities’ court personnel are adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Collins, 166 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2005) (plain language of statute governs if unambiguous)
- Ramsey v. Town of Oliver Springs, 998 S.W.2d 207 (Tenn. 1999) (DA’s statutory and constitutional obligation to prosecute)
- State v. Superior Oil, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 658 (Tenn. 1994) (breadth of prosecutorial discretion)
- Meighan v. US Sprint Commc’ns Co., 942 S.W.2d 476 (Tenn. 1997) (requirements and limitations for issuance of mandamus)
- State v. Bell, 69 S.W.3d 171 (Tenn. 2002) (abuse of prosecutorial discretion if not all factors considered)