CASE NOTES - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - GUILTY PLEAS - SEEKING RELIEF WHEN STATUTE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL RETROACTIVELY CAPRI ADULT CINEMA V STATE - 537 SW2D 896 (1976)

• NCJ Number: 55039
• Journal: Tennessee Law Review Volume: 43 Issue: 3 Dated: (SPRING 1976) Pages: 464-472
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 9 pages
• Corporate Author: Tennessee Law Review Assoc
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

CAPRI ADULT CINEMA V. STATE IS EXAMINED IN TERMS OF ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SEEKING OF RELIEF WHEN THE STATUTE UNDER WHICH CONVICTION OCCURED IS HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL RETROACTIVELY.

Abstract

IN CAPRI ADULT CINEMA V. STATE (1976), THE PETITIONERS WERE INDICTED UNDER THE TENNESSEE OBSCENITY LAWS, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF WHICH WAS THEN UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT. GUILTY PLEAS WERE ENTERED, AND EACH PETITIONER WAS GIVEN A 1 YEAR SUSPENDED SENTENCE AND ASSESSED A FINE. AFTER THE TIME ALLOWED FOR AN APPEAL UNDER A WRIT OF ERROR HAD ELAPSED, THE OBSCENITY STATUTES WERE HELD UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY WAS DECLARED APPLICABLE RETROACTIVELY. THE PETITIONERS APPLIED FOR A WRIT OF ERROR 2 DAYS BEFORE THEIR SUSPENED SENTENCES WERE FULLY EXECUTED, SEEKING VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND RESTITUTION OF THE FINES PREVIOUSLY PAID. IN DENYING THE WRIT AFTER THE SUSPENDED SENTENCES WERE FULLY EXECUTED, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT GUILTY PLEAS IMPLICITLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO APPELLATE REVIEW. ON CERTIORARI, THE TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT VACATION OF JUDGMENT AND RESTITUTION OF FINES PAID UNDER A RETROACTIVELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATUTE TO WHICH A DEFENDANT HAS PLEADED GUILTY MAY NOT BE OBTAINED BY WRIT OF ERROR. PROBABLY THE MOST CRITICAL QUESTION IN THIS CASE, IS THAT RAISED BY THE RETROACTIVITY OF THE STATUTE'S UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. REGARDING HOW FAR BACK RETROACTIVITY SHOULD EXTEND THE PETITIONERS IMPLIED THAT RETROACTIVITY, THOUGH PERHAPS INDEFINITE AS TO THE TIME PERIOD INVOLVES, SHOULD CERTAINLY HAVE INCLUDED THEIR CASE, IN WHICH JUDGMENT WAS ENTERED LESS THAN 4 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE RETROSPECTIVE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY RULING. THE DECISIVE FACTOR, HOWEVER, WAS THAT THE PETITIONERS' FINES HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID AND THEIR SUSPENDED SENTENCES COMPLETED. THUS, THERE REMAINED NO PART OF THE JUDGMENT FROM WHICH RELIEF COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, SINCE RESTITUTION OF FINES IS NOT ALLOWED IN SUCH INSTANCES. (RCB)