Dave BRUNDAGE et al. v. CUMBERLAND COUNTY et al.
Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville.
Dec. 19, 2011.
357 S.W.3d 361
June 1, 2011 Session.
Smith‘s primary focus on seeking relief in the Webb case was understandable, since he was sentenced to death in that case. There is no evidence that Smith was misled by any deception or misconduct on the part of trial counsel to forgo his right to post-conviction relief in the Pierce case. When Smith‘s conviction in the Pierce case became final on August 1, 1988, nothing prevented him from filing a petition seeking post-conviction relief. Even assuming that his amended claim filed on May 10, 2001, which raised the issues in the Pierce case for the first time, relates back to the time the original post-conviction claim in the Webb case was filed on December 17, 1999, this is still more than eleven years after the Pierce case conviction became final, and more than eight years after the statute of limitations expired. We hold that the рetition for post-conviction relief in the Pierce case is barred by the statute of limitations.
Conclusion
Smith‘s conviction and sentence for the Pierce murder is affirmed. Smith‘s conviction for the Webb murder is affirmed. Smith‘s death sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for hearings on the question of whether Smith was intellectually disabled at the time of the Webb murder and for resentencing. These hearings are to be conducted by a judge other than Judge Brown. It appearing from the record that the Petitioner is indigent, costs on appeal are assessed to the State of Tennessee.
Randal R. Boston, Crossville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Cumberland County and Cumberland County Commission.
William L. Penny and Corinne E. Martin, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Smith Mountain Solutions, LLC.
OPINION
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CORNELIA A. CLARK, C.J., JANICE M. HOLDER, GARY R. WADE, and SHARON G. LEE, JJ., joined.
This appeal calls into question the proper procedurе for obtaining judicial review of a local legislative body‘s land use decision under the “Jackson Law,”
I.
Wright Brothers Construction (“Wright Brothers“) decided to construct a coal ash landfill on Smith Mountain in Cumberland County. The company and the county officials entered into a “Host Agreement” which obligated Wright Brothers to form a new entity, Smith Mountain Solutions, LLC, that would construct and operate the landfill and pay “a substantial host fee” to the county. After rumors about the negotiations between Wright Brothers and the county began to spread, Dave Brundage, a property owner on Smith Mountain, asked the mayor of Cumberland County about the landfill and was told that it “was a done deal.”
The county officials presented Resolution 0609-12 approving the plans for the landfill to the Cumberland County Commission (“Commission“). After proper public notice, the Commission held a hearing on the resоlution on June 2, 2009. In papers filed in the later court proceeding, the landfill‘s opponents characterized this hearing as one-sided and tumultuous. Following the meeting, seven hundred persons signed a petition opposing the landfill and presented the petition to the mayor and the county commissioners. Nevertheless, the Commission approved Resolution 0609-12 on June 15, 2009.
On August 12, 2009, seventeen individuals and the Black Cat Lodge, LLC, filed a “statutory petition for writ of certiorari” in the Chancery Court for Cumberland Coun
On November 4, 2009, the petitioners filed an “amended petition for judicial review” that omitted any reference to a statutory writ of certiorari. Each petitioner attached an affidavit to the amended petition affirming the truth of the allegations in the petition. On November 12, 2009, the petitioners also filed a response to the Cumberland County defendants’ motion to dismiss insisting that they were also seeking judicial review under the Jackson Law‘s judicial review provision, which they believed operated independently and separately from the judicial review proceeding under a statutory writ of certiorari.
Following a hearing on the Cumberland County defendants’ motion to dismiss, the trial court filed an order on December 20, 2009, dismissing the petition. The court, relying on Tennessee Waste Movers, Inc. v. Loudon County, 160 S.W.3d 517 (Tenn. 2005), found that a writ of certiorari was the only way to obtain judicial review of a county‘s decision under the Jackson Law. The court also concluded that petitions for a writ of certiorari must be verified and must be filed within sixty days following the action to be reviewed and that the court “lost subject matter jurisdiction of this case” because the residents’ petition had not been verified. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court‘s decision. Brundage v. Cumberland Cnty., 2010 WL 3025538, at *4. We granted the petitioners’ application for permission to appeal to determine whether
II.
Our task in this case is to determine the meaning of
Issues of statutory construction are questions of law that we review de novo with no presumption of correctness attaching to the lower courts’ decision. Seals v. H & F, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 237, 241-42 (Tenn.2010); Hayes v. Gibson Cnty., 288 S.W.3d 334, 337 (Tenn.2009).
Our role in construing a statute is first to ascertain and then to give the fullest possible effect to its purpose with
The natural place to start is with the language of the statute itself. When thаt language is “clear and unambiguous,” this Court will apply its plain meaning without adopting a forced interpretation that would restrict or broaden the statute‘s scope. Eastman Chem. Co. v. Johnson, 151 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tenn.2004). Only when the language is ambiguous may we look to the legislature‘s intent, which may be discerned from the “broader statutory scheme, the history of the legislation, or other sources.” Seals, 301 S.W.3d at 242; see also Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515, 527 (Tenn.2010); Houghton v. Aramark Educ. Res., Inc., 90 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tenn.2002). A statute is ambiguous if it “can reasonably have more than one meaning.” Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d at 527 & n. 20 (citing LeTellier v. LeTellier, 40 S.W.3d 490, 498 (Tenn.2001); Bryant v. HCA Health Servs. of N. Tenn., Inc., 15 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Tenn.2000)).
Guiding our inquiry is the presumption “that the General Assembly was aware of its prior enactments and knew the state of thе law at the time it passed the legislation.” Seals, 301 S.W.3d at 242. We also presume that the General Assembly is aware of how courts have previously construed its statutes, Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d at 527; Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 707 (Tenn. 1997), and that it would not wish to enact an “absurdity.” Fletcher v. State, 951 S.W.2d 378, 382 (Tenn.1997).
III.
The ownership of property has been considered to be a fundamental right ever since the founding of this country. It was so important to the colonists that an early draft of the Declaration of Independence stated that all individuals are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property.2 Although Thomas Jefferson eventually substituted “the pursuit of Happiness” for “the pursuit of Property,” for many, the pursuit of happiness still entails acquiring and owning property.3
Even though the right to acquire, possess, and use property remains fundamental, see Nollan v. California Coastal Comm‘n, 483 U.S. 825, 831 (1987); Stratton Claimants v. Morris Claimants, 89 Tenn. 497, 513-15, 15 S.W. 87, 90-91 (1891); State ex rel. Elvis Presley Int‘l Mem‘l Found. v. Crowell, 733 S.W.2d 89, 96 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1987), a person‘s possession and use of property is not beyond the reach of the appropriate exercise of the state‘s power to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. We have noted that
Rights of property, like all other social and conventional rights, are subject to such reasonаble limitations in their enjoyment, as shall prevent them from being injurious, and to such reasonable
restraints and regulations established by law, as the Legislature, under the governing and controlling power vested in them by the Constitution, may think necessary and expedient.
Spencer-Sturla Co. v. City of Memphis, 155 Tenn. 70, 81, 290 S.W. 608, 612 (1927) (quoting Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. (7 Cush.) 53, 85 (1851)).
Throughout recorded history, governments have exercised their police power to enact land use regulations. In 451 B.C., Rome enacted the Laws of the Twelve Tables that “included fire, safety, and wastewater regulations for the purpose of protecting public health.”4 Following the great London fire of 1666, Parliament passed the “Act for the Rebuilding of London” that divided housing into four classifications with differing regulations for each.5 The exercise of police power to enact land use regulations was also commonplace in colonial America.6
Despite the longevity and ubiquity of the states’ exercise of their police power to regulate land use, the public‘s pervasive sense of independence and its mistrust of governmental regulation of property rights initially delayed and diluted the spread and impact of zoning regulations.7 It was not until the Twentieth Century that a series of court decisions paved the way for the enactment of comprehensive zoning laws by state and local governments.8
In 1935, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted statutes empowering cities and counties to enact zoning regulations.9 These statutes were based on model legislation that had been prepared by the federal government in the 1920s.10 These statutes were permissive. They “empowered” but did not require cities or counties to enact zoning regulations. See
Many local governments in Tennessee declined to exercise their regulatory power. By 1989, sixty-nine counties, mostly rural ones, had not enacted zoning regulations.11 Many communities chose not to enact comprehensive zoning laws because their residents feared that they would be
This concern was more than theoretical. Without local land use regulаtions, a solid waste disposal company could construct a commercial landfill in a county simply by purchasing the property and by obtaining a permit from the State of Tennessee. In the permitting process, the State would review the geology and hydrology of the proposed landfill site, see, e.g.,
Accordingly, Representative Jackson proposed a stop-gap measure15 that would enable communities without comprehensive zoning ordinances to have “some input, not dictatorial rights to say yes or no, but to act reasonably and responsibly with respect to the criteria in the bill.”16 The Tennessee General Assembly enacted Representative Jackson‘s proposal—now commonly known as the Jackson Law—in 1989.17 It permits counties and cities to opt into its provisions by a two-thirds vote of the appropriate legislative body. See
IV.
This is not the first occasion where we have been called upon to construe
Seizing on our conclusion in Tennessee Waste Movers, Inc. v. Loudon County that
The focus of Tennessee Waste Movers, Inc. v. Loudon County was on the meaning of “de novo review” in
When the Tennessee General Assembly empowers state or local government entities to make decisions affecting the rights of citizens, it has the authority and discretion to prescribe the procedure for obtaining judicial review of these decisions. On many occasions, the General Assembly has demonstrated its ability to pick and choose among different remedies, as well as its ability to be precise about the manner in which a decision should be reviewed. The General Assembly has, in different contexts, presсribed the use of common-law writs of certiorari,23 statutory writs of certiorari,24 the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act,25 and declaratory judgments.26
The procedure for judicial review under the Jackson Law is open-ended. The General Assembly has stated only that the
Based on the Jackson Law‘s broad language, we conclude that any method that enablеs the reviewing court to conduct a de novo review of the local legislative body‘s decision is compatible with
The second procedure is a petition for declaratory judgment under
[a]ny person ... whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract, or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.
The Jackson Law is a stаtute that confers upon affected persons the right to seek judicial review of the validity of the local legislative body‘s decision making process. We see no reason why a petition for judicial review under
This conclusion is consistent with the traditional dichotomy we have recognized with regard to the procedure for obtaining judicial review of other land use decisions by local governments. We have held that a petition for declaratory judgment is the appropriate way to obtain judicial review of essentially “legislative” decisions and that a petition for writ of certiorari is the appropriate way to obtain judicial review of “quasi-judicial” decisions. Fallin v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Comm‘rs, 656 S.W.2d 338, 342 (Tenn.1983).
The proceeding before the local legislative body authorized by the Jackson Law is a hybrid. While the local legislative body is not amending an existing land use ordinance because such an ordinance does not exist, it is acting “legislatively” in the sense that it is making an ad hoc policy decision regarding the use to which a particular parcel of land may be put. However, the local legislative body is required to make its decision by considering seven specific and one general criteria.
The General Assembly could have accorded more weight to a local legislative body‘s application of the Jackson Law by prescribing the more constraining stan
V.
There is no question that petitions for a statutory writ of certiorari must satisfy the requirements of both
However, the fact that the residents’ petition did not satisfy the formal requirements for a writ of certiorari does not necessarily mean that the petition must be dismissed. In other land use planning cases, the courts have consistently been lenient with regard to their construction of the petition. For example, we have permitted an improperly filed petition for declaratory judgment to be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633, 640 (Tenn.1990), and conversely, we have allowed an improperly filed petition for writ of certiorari to be treated as a petition for declaratory judgment. Fallin v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Comm‘rs, 656 S.W.2d 338 at 342.
When appropriate, the courts should give effect to the substance of a pleading rather than its form. Abshure v. Methodist Healthcare-Memphis Hosps., 325 S.W.3d 98, 104 (Tenn.2010); see also Bemis Co. v. Hines, 585 S.W.2d 574, 576 (Tenn.1979) (holding that courts should construe motions based on their substance rather than their title). Thus, even though the residents’ initial petition was styled as a “statutory petition for writ of certiorari,” the body of the petition reflects unmistakably that the residents were seeking judicial review of the Cumberland County Commission‘s decision under the Jackson Law to authorize Smith Mountain Solutions, LLC to construct a coal ash landfill on Smith Mountain.
When the General Assembly enacted the Jackson Law, it intended to afford rural Tennesseans a reasonable method for voicing their objections to the construction of commercial landfills. An important procedural safeguard to ensure that the citizens’ voices would be heard is the broad judicial review provision contained in
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the trial court and remand the case to the trial court for a de novo review of thе decision of the Cumberland County Commission in accordance with the criteria contained in
WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR.
JUSTICE