State of Tennessee v. Christopher Minor
546 S.W.3d 59
| Tenn. | 2018Background
- Defendant Christopher Minor was convicted of multiple violent offenses and seven counts under Tennessee's criminal gang enhancement statute; sentencing included at least ten years added under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-121(b).
- After trial but while Minor's appeal was pending, the Court of Criminal Appeals decided State v. Bonds, holding the gang enhancement statute unconstitutional for failing to require proof of a nexus between gang membership and the offense.
- Minor raised Bonds on appeal for the first time; the Court of Criminal Appeals majority denied relief under the plain-error doctrine, treating the statute as presumptively valid at trial.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to resolve how new appellate rulings apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review and how preservation and plain-error interact with such retroactivity (with particular attention to Henderson v. United States).
- The Supreme Court held that new rules apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review but that retroactive application is subject to preservation rules and the plain-error doctrine; because Minor failed to preserve the constitutional challenge at trial, the Court applied plain-error review and granted relief, vacating the gang convictions and remanding for resentencing without enhancement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Minor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new appellate constitutional rule (Bonds) applies retroactively to cases pending on direct review | New rules shouldn't automatically displace preservation; Bonds is nonbinding unpublished authority at time of trial and Minor waived the issue | Bonds applies retroactively to all cases pending on direct review; Minor is entitled to plenary review and harmless-error analysis, not limited plain-error review | New rules apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review, but application is subject to preservation and plain-error doctrine |
| When law changes between trial and appeal, which time governs plain-error "plainness" inquiry? | Plainness should be assessed by reference to law at time of trial | Plainness can be evaluated by law at time of appellate consideration; defendant should get benefit of new rule on appeal | Plainness is judged by the law at the time of appellate consideration (adopting Johnson principle; Henderson discussed but not necessary here) |
| Whether Minor's convictions and sentence enhancements under the gang statute warrant relief despite failure to raise statute's constitutionality at trial | Deny relief under plain error because statute was presumptively constitutional at trial and error was not "plain" then | Grant relief because Bonds now establishes the statute as unconstitutional and Minor's sentence was materially affected | Minor satisfied all five plain-error criteria; convictions under the gang statute vacated and remanded for resentencing without enhancement |
| Whether appellate courts must use plenary review (not plain error) when a new rule is announced while an appeal is pending but the issue was not preserved | New rule retroactivity does not override preservation—plain-error applies if issue not raised at trial | New rule should allow plenary review for all pending direct-review cases even if not preserved | Plenary review only when the issue was preserved; otherwise courts must apply the new rule via plain-error review |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (new constitutional rules apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review)
- Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013) (plain-error plainness measured by law at time of appellate review; discussed extensively)
- Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) (error is plain if it is plain at time of appellate consideration when law changed between trial and appeal)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (plain-error doctrine requires error to be plain under current law; acknowledged special cases where law changed)
- Gomez v. Tennessee, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005) (Tennessee adoption of Johnson principles on retroactivity and preservation)
- State v. Bonds, 502 S.W.3d 118 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2016) (court of criminal appeals decision declaring Tennessee's gang enhancement statute unconstitutional; formed basis for retroactive relief)