State of Tennessee v. Donald Schoenthal and Tara Neutzler, W2019-01529-CCA-R3-CD

Carroll County deputies executed a search warrant at defendants Donald Schoenthal and Tara Neutzler’s property with assistance from two nonprofit animal‑rescue groups; photographs and seized animals formed part of the affidavit and evidence.
Grand jury returned 156‑count indictments against each defendant (animal cruelty and child endangerment); the State later dismissed over 120 counts.
Defendants moved to suppress evidence and to dismiss indictments, arguing deficient probable cause, improper execution (volunteer involvement), and evidence preservation problems; trial court denied both motions after hearings.
At a subsequent hearing the parties reached plea agreements; each entered an Alford (best‑interest) plea to one aggravated animal cruelty count and three animal‑cruelty counts, with agreed sentences but the trial court reserved the manner of service of those sentences.
At sentencing the court imposed short periods of confinement (Schoenthal 120 days; Neutzler 75 days) followed by supervised probation, made detailed findings denying diversion, and the defendants appealed only the denial of their suppression motions.
The Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction: defendants waived non‑jurisdictional challenges by pleading guilty and did not reserve a certified question of law under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2), and the court declined to treat the appeal as a certiorari petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants have an appeal as of right to challenge denial of suppression motions after pleading guilty	Defendants waived suppression claims by entering counseled, informed guilty pleas and failed to reserve a certified question; thus no Rule 3(b)/Rule 37(b)(2) appeal	The sentencing court’s remark about reporting unless an appeal is perfected preserved or created ambiguity about their appellate waiver; alternatively, plea was rendered unknowing/invalid	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants waived non‑jurisdictional suppression claims and did not reserve a certified question; plea found knowing and voluntary.
Whether the plea was unknowing/invalid because of a sentencing‑hearing comment	State: plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered; the court’s comment referenced the only issue actually reserved to the court (manner of service) and did not preserve suppression issues	Defendants: trial court’s statement created substantial uncertainty about waiver and preserved appellate rights or rendered the plea involuntary	Court rejected defendants’ contention: record shows valid Alford pleas; the comment did not preserve suppression claims; no invalidating error on the face of the record.

State v. Rowland, 520 S.W.3d 542 (Tenn. 2017) (guilty plea waives non‑jurisdictional defects, including illegal search issues)
State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1999) (voluntary, informed guilty plea admits facts necessary to convict and waives prior defects)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (recognizing the "Alford" or best‑interest plea)
State v. Leath, 977 S.W.2d 132 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (discussing court’s authority to treat improper Rule 3(b) appeals as certiorari in limited circumstances)