State of Tennessee v. Kevin Dean Atkins
M2016-01636-CCA-R9-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 2, 2016Background
- Kevin Dean Atkins was indicted for DUI and DUI per se; he faced a separate violation-of-probation (VOP) proceeding.
- On November 24, 2014, Atkins waived the VOP hearing, admitted the violation, agreed to ten days jail on weekends, an extra year of probation, and pled guilty to a reduced charge of public intoxication with a suspended 30-day sentence to run consecutive to the VOP sentence.
- The trial court orally accepted the plea and its terms at the plea hearing; an order reflecting the court’s acceptance was entered that same day (the written judgment was later found not attached).
- Atkins began serving the VOP weekend jail term and served most of it before the State moved (January 13, 2015) to set aside the public-intoxication judgment, asserting the plea offer’s provenance was mistaken (it had been presented by a probation officer, not clearly by a prosecutor).
- The trial court granted the State’s motion and vacated the plea, returning the parties to pre-plea status; Atkins sought and obtained interlocutory appellate review under Tenn. R. App. P. 9.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded the trial court’s withdrawal of the accepted plea—after Atkins relied on it and served most of the sentence—violated double jeopardy and reversed, remanding for entry of judgment consistent with the plea.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Atkins' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly set aside accepted guilty plea before judgment based on misunderstanding of offer source | The plea was invalid because the plea offer’s source was misrepresented; relief appropriate | Atkins argued plea was knowing, voluntary, accepted by court, and final for double jeopardy purposes; State estopped/time-barred | Court held setting aside plea violated double jeopardy under circumstances; reversal of trial court order |
| Whether jeopardy had attached at time court vacated plea | State implied jeopardy had not attached because court had not entered final judgment | Atkins contended court unconditionally accepted plea at hearing so jeopardy attached | Court found the trial court had unconditionally accepted plea at hearing and defendant had relied on it; double jeopardy bars withdrawal |
| Whether misunderstanding about plea terms or source justified withdrawal | State: misunderstanding about who authorized the offer justified setting aside plea | Atkins: no misunderstanding of terms; only source mistaken and not attributable to fraud by defense | Court distinguished from precedents where court misunderstood terms; here terms were clear and no fraud—withdrawal improper |
| Whether trial court had authority to set aside plea before entry of judgment | State: trial court may set aside plea prior to judgment | Atkins: even if court had authority, double jeopardy limits exercise after acceptance and reliance | Court acknowledged limited authority but held double jeopardy prevented vacatur here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Todd, 654 S.W.2d 379 (Tenn. 1983) (jeopardy does not attach until plea is unconditionally accepted)
- State v. Burris, 40 S.W.3d 520 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2000) (trial court may withdraw acceptance when misunderstanding of plea terms appears in record)
- State v. Atkins, 867 S.W.2d 350 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (court may treat plea as contingent on presentence report review)
- State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012) (explaining triple protections of double jeopardy)
- United States v. Sanchez, 609 F.2d 761 (5th Cir. 1980) (federal precedent recognizing court’s freedom to reject plea until final judgment)