State of Tennessee v. Terrence Justin Feaster, 2015 Tenn. LEXIS 514

In May 2010 Terrence Feaster assaulted Molly McWhirter, causing severe injuries; he was later indicted on multiple felonies, convicted at trial of attempted voluntary manslaughter (lesser included of attempted first‑degree murder), aggravated assault, and false imprisonment, and acquitted of some charges.
Trial court imposed consecutive sentences: 12 years (attempted voluntary manslaughter), 14 years (aggravated assault), and 11 months & 29 days (false imprisonment).
The Court of Criminal Appeals (divided) affirmed; one judge dissented, arguing the convictions for attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault should have merged under the then‑governing Tennessee test from State v. Denton.
This Court granted review to decide whether the Court’s 2012 decision in State v. Watkins—which replaced Denton’s four‑factor test with the Blockburger same‑elements analysis—may be applied retroactively to offenses that predate Watkins.
The central constitutional question was whether due process forbids retroactive application of Watkins when Denton governed at the time of the offense.
The Supreme Court held Watkins may be applied retroactively and affirmed the convictions, concluding attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault did not merge under Blockburger.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Watkins may be applied retroactively to offenses committed before Watkins	State: Watkins properly governs multiple‑description double jeopardy claims and may be applied to pre‑Watkins offenses	Feaster: Applying Watkins retroactively violates due process because Denton governed at time of offense; Denton should control	Retroactive application of Watkins does not violate due process; Watkins governs
Whether attempted voluntary manslaughter and aggravated assault must merge under double jeopardy	State: Offenses arise from same transaction but each contains an element the other does not under Blockburger, so no merger	Feaster: Under Denton (four‑factor test) the convictions should merge	Under Watkins/Blockburger, each offense has distinct elements and legislative intent does not prohibit multiple punishments; no merger

State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting Blockburger same‑elements test for multiple‑description double jeopardy claims)
State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996) (previous Tennessee four‑factor test for merger of convictions)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same‑elements test for double jeopardy)
Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964) (due process bars retroactive, unforeseeable judicial expansions of criminal liability)
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (due process prevents retroactive application when a new constitutional rule expands criminal liability)
State v. Rogers, 992 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. 1999) (Tennessee Supreme Court abolished year‑and‑a‑day rule; held not unexpected or indefensible)
Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) (U.S. Supreme Court affirming Tennessee’s Rogers and discussing limits on retroactive judicial change)
Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721 (1998) (double jeopardy protects against multiple punishments and successive prosecutions)