State of Tennessee v. William Christopher Davis, E2016-02132-CCA-R3-CD

Dept. of Safety requested DA to file MVHO petition against William Christopher Davis; petition filed Feb 25, 2016 seeking HMVO classification based on three prior convictions.
Defendant had pled guilty to a Knox County DUI on Dec 30, 2015; afterward he obtained a restricted license (installed interlock, SR22, paid fee).
Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the State had notice of the triggering convictions at the plea and failed to follow T.C.A. § 55-10-618(b) and timely file/notify.
Trial court found the MVHO Act ambiguous and penal in nature and concluded ambiguities must be resolved for defendant, so it dismissed the State’s petition.
State appealed, asserting it had an appeal as of right under Tenn. R. App. P. 3(c)(1); defendant argued no Rule 3(c) right existed.
Court of Criminal Appeals held the State lacks a Rule 3(c) appeal as of right from dismissal of an HMVO petition and dismissed the State’s appeal.

Issue	State's Argument	Davis's Argument	Held
Whether State has an appeal as of right under Tenn. R. App. P. 3(c) from dismissal of an MVHO petition	Dismissal has the substantive effect of dismissing a complaint, so Rule 3(c)(1) permits State appeal as of right	Rule 3(c) limits State appeals to enumerated circumstances; HMVO petition is not an indictment/information	Court: No. HMVO petition is not indictment/information; Rule 3(c) is exclusive, so no Rule 3(c) appeal as of right
Whether MVHO statute supplies a separate method for State appeal	Prior practice and cases suggest State can appeal HMVO dismissals	Statute (T.C.A. §55-10-614(a)) expressly grants defendant an appeal to CCA; silence as to State implies no State appeal	Court: Statute provides defendant appeal only; expressio unius excludes State appeal
Whether MVHO Act is penal or ambiguous such that dismissal was required	State implied act is remedial and not penal; no ambiguity	Trial court treated act as penal and ambiguous, resolving ambiguity for defendant	Court: Act is not penal and not ambiguous, but disposition unnecessary because appeal dismissed
Whether precedent permits considering State appeals of HMVO dismissals without Rule 3(c)	State cites earlier CCA decisions that reviewed State appeals of HMVO dismissals	Those cases did not address Rule 3(c) availability; prior review does not create Rule 3(c) right	Court: Earlier cases don’t establish Rule 3(c) right; issue is one of first impression and Rule controls

State v. Adler, 92 S.W.3d 397 (Tenn. 2002) (Rule 3(c) lists exclusive circumstances in which State may appeal as of right)
Goats v. State, 364 S.W.2d 889 (Tenn. 1963) (revocation of driving privileges is not a penalty)
State v. Conley, 639 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. 1982) (HMVO revocation is remedial, not punishment)
United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1977) (constitutional double jeopardy limits on State appeals)
Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1938) (distinguishing remedial regulatory measures from punishment)