Craig Robert Nunn v. Tennessee Department of Correction
547 S.W.3d 163
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Craig Nunn pled guilty in 1999 to four counts of aggravated sexual battery and received concurrent 12-year terms plus community supervision for life under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-524; Board adopted Sex Offender Directives in 1999 imposing specialized conditions (treatment, polygraph, internet restrictions, alcohol ban, work limits around children, curfews).
- Nunn was released March 28, 2009, placed on lifetime supervision, signed the directives “under protest,” and was supervised under those directives thereafter.
- In September 2010 Nunn sued for declaratory relief (originally under the Declaratory Judgment Act, later amended to seek relief under the UAPA § 4-5-225 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983), alleging numerous federal and state constitutional violations (ex post facto, due process, equal protection, cruel and unusual punishment, vagueness, separation of powers, bills of attainder, right to travel, self-incrimination, takings) and that the Sex Offender Directives were adopted in violation of the UAPA.
- Defendants (TDOC and Attorney General) moved for summary judgment arguing most claims were time-barred (§ 1983 governed by Tennessee’s one-year civil-rights limitations), while also challenging the merits of separation-of-powers and UAPA claims; trial court held most constitutional claims time‑barred and granted summary judgment; it reached merits for separation of powers, vagueness, and UAPA issues and rejected them.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it agreed § 1983 declaratory claim is governed by the one‑year limitations period (and continuing-violation doctrine did not save it), but held that Nunn’s UAPA declaratory claims asserting violations of federal and Tennessee constitutions are governed by the ten‑year general limitations (so many UAPA constitutional claims were improperly dismissed as time‑barred) and remanded for the trial court to consider those claims on the merits; it also upheld the trial court’s rejection of separation‑of‑powers and vagueness/ex post facto challenges and declined to reach inadequately briefed UAPA-adoption arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper statute of limitations for § 1983 and UAPA declaratory claims | Nunn: UAPA §4-5-225 actions get ten-year general limitations; continuing violation tolls §1983 claim | Defendants: §1983 (and parallel civil-rights-based state claims) governed by Tenn. Code Ann. §28-3-104 one‑year; accrual on March 28, 2009 | Court: §1983 declaratory claim governed by one‑year; continuing-violation inapplicable; but UAPA declaratory claims asserting federal and state constitutional violations are not governed by §1983 one‑year and fall under general ten‑year rule -> partial reversal and remand |
| Ex post facto challenge to application of 1999 Sex Offender Directives | Nunn: Directives adopted after his offenses increased punishment and criminalized new conduct → retrospective and punitive (ex post facto) | Defendants: Directives implement pre-existing statutory discretion; statutes authorizing individualized conditions predated offenses | Court: Directives are policy clarifications of pre-existing discretionary authority, not a new retrospective punitive law; ex post facto claim rejected |
| Vagueness of §§ 39-13-524 and 39-13-526 (as‑applied) | Nunn: Statutes and delegated directives leave too much discretion; supervising officers impose inconsistent, vague conditions that can trigger criminal liability | Defendants: Statutory language, directive specifics, scienter (“knowingly”) and supervisory framework give fair notice and minimal guidelines | Court: As‑applied challenge fails — statutes and directives provide sufficient notice and mens rea requirement limits vagueness/arbitrary enforcement; claim rejected |
| Separation of powers / delegation to TDOC and UAPA rulemaking compliance | Nunn: Statute impermissibly delegates legislative power to TDOC/board to define criminal conduct; TDOC adoption of directives violated UAPA | Defendants: Statute provides adequate standards (protect public/promote rehabilitation); delegation to executive for rules is permissible; TDOC followed adoption process or merely exercises discretion | Court: Separation‑of‑powers challenge rejected (statute contains sufficient standards; Grainger reasoning adopted). UAPA compliance challenge was too vague and inadequately briefed — not reached by appellate court |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010) (describing lifetime community supervision and supervisory discretion)
- Hughley v. State, 208 S.W.3d 388 (Tenn. 2006) (UAPA §4-5-225 declaratory actions and application of ten‑year limitations when no other statutory remedy applies)
- Dehoff v. Attorney Gen., 564 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. 1978) (declaratory judgment is procedural; must look to substantive claim to pick limitations period)
- Bean v. McWherter, 953 S.W.2d 197 (Tenn. 1997) (delegation test: statute must contain sufficient standards/guidelines to enable agency and courts to determine legislative intent)
- Crank v. State, 468 S.W.3d 15 (Tenn. 2015) (void‑for‑vagueness doctrine and as‑applied vs facial analysis)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (accrual rule for §1983 claims governed by federal law)
- Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (state statute of limitations for most analogous personal‑injury action applies to §1983)
- Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1798) (four categories of ex post facto laws)