Derrick Brandon Bush v. State of Tennessee
2014 Tenn. LEXIS 16
| Tenn. | 2014Background
- Derrick Brandon Bush pleaded guilty in 2000 to two counts of attempted rape; plea minutes and colloquy indicated an "effective eight-year" sentence with one year in jail and seven years on "state probation." The trial court did not inform him that the convictions carried mandatory lifetime community supervision, and the jury-judgment forms later reflected lifetime supervision.
- Bush discovered the lifetime supervision post-release and did not file for post-conviction relief until April 2011 (within one year of this Court’s decision in Ward v. State, 2010).
- In Ward v. State (2010), this Court held lifetime community supervision is a direct punitive consequence of certain pleas and trial courts must inform defendants of that consequence before accepting guilty pleas.
- The post-conviction trial court granted relief, tolling the one-year statute of limitations on due process grounds and applying Ward retroactively; the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding no due-process tolling and that Ward was not retroactive.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide which retroactivity standard governs Tennessee post-conviction proceedings (Meadows standard v. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-30-122) and whether Ward must be applied retroactively or whether due-process tolling is warranted; it affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ward announced a new constitutional rule triggering §40-30-102(b)(1)’s tolling | Ward is a new constitutional rule and, because Bush filed within one year of Ward, his late petition is timely | Ward should not be applied retroactively; Bush’s petition is untimely | Ward announced a new rule, but it does not require retroactive application under §40-30-122, so §40-30-102(b)(1) does not toll the deadline |
| Which retroactivity standard governs Tennessee post-conviction review: Meadows (court-made) or Tenn. Code Ann. §40-30-122 (statutory) | Meadows should control (state judicial function) | The statutory standard §40-30-122 governs retroactivity of claims under the Post-Conviction Procedure Act | §40-30-122 governs retroactivity in post-conviction cases; the legislature intended a stricter, Teague-like standard |
| Whether Ward is retroactive under §40-30-122 (i.e., is it implicit in "ordered liberty") | Ward requires retroactive application because it safeguards knowing, voluntary pleas | Ward is an important procedural rule but not a "watershed" or one that affects accuracy of convictions | Ward does not meet the §40-30-122/Teague "ordered liberty" exception and is not retroactive |
| Whether due-process tolling of the one-year limitations period is warranted | Bush diligently pursued rights after discovery and extraordinary circumstances (non-disclosure) prevented timely filing | Bush was not diligent over the intervening years and does not meet the high standard for tolling | Due-process tolling denied: Bush failed the diligence prong and this is not an extraordinary case warranting tolling |
Key Cases Cited
- Ward v. State, 315 S.W.3d 461 (Tenn. 2010) (held lifetime community supervision is a direct punitive consequence and trial courts must advise defendants before accepting pleas)
- Meadows v. State, 849 S.W.2d 748 (Tenn. 1993) (Tennessee had adopted a state standard requiring retroactivity when a new rule materially enhances the integrity and reliability of trial factfinding)
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (federal habeas retroactivity framework limiting collateral application of new constitutional rules to narrow exceptions)
- Van Tran v. State, 66 S.W.3d 790 (Tenn. 2001) (applied Meadows standard; discussed interaction with Teague and state retroactivity)
- Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (clarified due-process tolling requires diligence and extraordinary external obstacle)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (constitutional rule that guilty pleas must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)