State of Tennessee v. Michael Eugene Tolle, 591 S.W.3d 539

In 2012 Tolle pleaded guilty to two thefts: Count 1 (>$500 and <$1,000) as a Class E felony (2-year sentence) and Count 2 (≤ $500) as a Class A misdemeanor; he was placed on probation.
Tolle violated probation; he was arrested in South Carolina (2014), remained incarcerated there until late 2016, and was returned to Tennessee in December 2016.
The Public Safety Act of 2016 (effective Jan. 1, 2017) amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-105 to grade theft ≤ $1,000 as a Class A misdemeanor rather than a Class E felony.
At the Feb. 2017 revocation hearing Tolle conceded the violation and asked the court to reduce his sentence under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35 and to apply the Criminal Savings Statute so he could be punished under the amended, more lenient theft grading.
The trial court revoked probation and reduced Tolle’s sentence to 11 months, 29 days (Class A misdemeanor). The State appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals vacated the reduced sentence. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court held (1) appellate jurisdiction was proper because the reduction was effectively a Rule 35 modification permitting State appeal, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by changing the offense class post-revocation—the Criminal Savings Statute did not allow regrading after revocation because the revocation relates back to the original sentence.

Issue	State's Argument	Tolle's Argument	Held
Whether the State had a right to appeal the trial court’s sentence reduction after probation revocation	Reduction was appealable under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35(d) when the court modified the sentence	The State had no statutory right to appeal; any review required certiorari	Held: Appellate jurisdiction proper—trial court’s reduction was effectively a Rule 35 modification, which authorizes State appeal
Whether Tolle could benefit from the 2017 amendment (Criminal Savings Statute) after probation revocation	Criminal Savings Statute does not apply to post-revocation resentencing; revocation actions relate back to the original sentence	The amended theft grading is a lesser penalty and applies under the Criminal Savings Statute, so he should receive the misdemeanor grading/sentence	Held: Although the Criminal Savings Statute generally applies, the trial court abused its Rule 35 authority by altering the offense class after revocation; reduction may be only to a sentence the court could have originally imposed, so regrading to a misdemeanor was impermissible

State v. Meeks, 262 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2008) (state appeals in criminal cases are strictly limited; certiorari standards)
State v. Smith, 893 S.W.2d 908 (Tenn. 1994) (general rule: sentence governed by statute in effect at time of offense)
State v. Patterson, 564 S.W.3d 423 (Tenn. 2018) (standard of review for Rule 35 motion is abuse of discretion)
State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999) (trial court options upon probation revocation)
State v. Lane, 254 S.W.3d 349 (Tenn. 2008) (use of common-law writ of certiorari to correct certain trial-court errors)
Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923 (Tenn. 1995) (principles of statutory construction and legislative intent)