610 S.W.3d 450
Tenn.2020Background
- Marty Holland pled guilty to attempted first-degree murder and especially aggravated robbery and agreed to a 17-year sentence to run concurrently with a prior federal sentence and consecutively to an unrelated state theft sentence.
- Holland filed a post-conviction petition raising claims about an unlawful search and bench warrant, coerced confession, and ineffective assistance of counsel; he did not specifically raise the concurrent state–federal sentencing issue.
- After amendment and appointment of counsel, the court held an evidentiary hearing, heard testimony from trial counsel and investigators, and denied relief, finding counsel effective and the plea knowing and voluntary.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the denial but, sua sponte, remanded for an evidentiary hearing limited to whether Holland was advised about the consequences of serving his state sentence concurrently with his federal sentence—an issue neither party had raised or litigated below.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review and held that the Post‑Conviction Procedure Act limits review to issues raised in the petition (or litigated without objection), that the concurrent‑sentence issue was waived, and that the Court of Criminal Appeals lacked authority to raise it sua sponte; the Court reversed the remand and reinstated the post‑conviction denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appellate court may raise sua sponte an issue not pleaded in a post‑conviction petition (here, the state–federal concurrent sentencing question) | Holland argued appellate rules (Tenn. R. App. P. 2, 13(b), 36(b)) and a perceived appellate “trend” allow courts to consider such issues sua sponte | State argued the issue was waived under the Post‑Conviction Procedure Act and plain‑error review is unavailable in post‑conviction proceedings | Court held the issue was waived and the CCA lacked authority to raise it sua sponte; remand reversed. |
| Whether the Post‑Conviction Procedure Act permits appellate consideration of claims not included in the petition | Holland urged broader appellate discretion to correct errors not raised below | State relied on statutory waiver rules and precedent restricting appellate sua sponte review in post‑conviction cases | Court held the Act controls and limits review to claims in the petition or those litigated at the hearing without objection; waiver applies here. |
| Whether Holland received ineffective assistance of counsel and/or an involuntary plea | Holland argued counsel failed to investigate warrants and coerced confession, producing an uninformed plea | State and post‑conviction court maintained counsel’s performance was adequate and Holland failed to prove claims by clear and convincing evidence | The Supreme Court reinstated the post‑conviction court’s denial of relief on these claims (affirming that denial). |
Key Cases Cited
- Grindstaff v. State, 297 S.W.3d 208 (Tenn. 2009) (plain‑error review generally unavailable in post‑conviction proceedings; waived claims not reach‑able on appeal)
- State v. West, 19 S.W.3d 753 (Tenn. 2000) (post‑conviction waiver doctrine and limitation on plain‑error application)
- Bush v. State, 428 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2014) (post‑conviction relief is a statutory remedy whose scope is defined by the legislature)
- Whitehead v. State, 402 S.W.3d 615 (Tenn. 2013) (standards of review for post‑conviction proceedings)
- Pike v. State, 164 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 2005) (courts’ interpretation that post‑conviction scope rests with General Assembly)