590 S.W.3d 455
Tenn.2019Background
- Ashley Menke pleaded guilty in July 2016 to multiple charges, including theft listed as theft of $1,000 (charged/pleaded as a Class D felony under the law in effect at the time of the offense).
- The Public Safety Act of 2016 (effective Jan. 1, 2017) amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-105 to reclassify theft of $1,000 as a Class A misdemeanor (and otherwise raised value thresholds for several theft grades).
- Menke was sentenced after the amendment took effect; the trial court applied the amended grading statute, sentenced Count 9 to 11 months 29 days (Class A misdemeanor) and ran it concurrently with other counts.
- The State appealed under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-402(b), arguing the trial court used the wrong sentence range and should have imposed consecutive felony sentencing for a theft committed while on bail.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing within the Class D felony range and to impose consecutive sentencing; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review on (1) whether the State could appeal and (2) whether the Criminal Savings Statute applies to the theft grading amendments.
- The Supreme Court held the State had statutory appellate authority under § 40-35-402(b)(1) and—contrary to the CCA’s decision—applied the Criminal Savings Statute to the 2016 amendments, affirming the trial court’s misdemeanor sentence and concurrent service for Count 9.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Menke) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether the State had a right to appeal the sentence | § 40-35-402(b) authorizes the State to appeal when the court imposed the wrong sentence range or ordered concurrent sentences | Rule 3 of Tenn. R. App. P. is the exclusive source of the State’s appeals as of right, so no statutory appeal | Held: § 40-35-402(b)(1) supplies statutory authority; the State could appeal the alleged wrong sentence range (jurisdiction exists) |
| 2) Whether the Criminal Savings Statute (§ 39-11-112) applies to the 2016 theft-grading amendments | The amendment changed the element of value and thus redefined offenses (not a mere penalty reduction), so savings statute does not apply; sentence should be within original felony range and consecutive | The amendments reduced the applicable penalty for certain value ranges; savings statute requires applying the lesser penalty in effect at sentencing | Held: Value is not an essential element of theft for this purpose; the 2016 amendments produce a lesser penalty and the Criminal Savings Statute applies — defendant properly sentenced under amended grading (Class A misdemeanor), so concurrent sentence was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2008) (statutory authorization required for State appeals in criminal cases and statutes are strictly construed)
- State v. Adler, 92 S.W.3d 397 (Tenn. 2002) (discussing Rule 3 enumerated appeals as of right and limits of Rule 3)
- State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994) (general rule that offender is sentenced under statute in effect at time of offense)
- State v. Cauthern, 967 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998) (principles governing Criminal Savings Statute and retroactivity when subsequent act provides a lesser penalty)
- State v. Hamm, 611 S.W.2d 826 (Tenn. 1981) (value of stolen property is a question for the trier of fact)
- State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2015) (statutory-construction issues reviewed de novo)