Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37
Advisory Commission Comments.
This rule retains present law as to when a direct appeal lies, except for the significant provisions addressing appeals from pleas of guilty and nolo contendere. The first provision permits an appeal in the context of a controlling question that needs answering, such as the constitutionality of a statute upon which a charge is grounded or the validity of the search upon which the state’s case must be made, and should avoid the necessity for many trials. The rules regarding certified questions of law that are dispositive of the case vary depending on whether there is a plea bargain and whether the state agrees to the appeal. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(i) and (iv). In order for an attorney to perfect an appeal of a certified question, the attorney must be certain that the application fully comports with the requirements for this type of an appeal as set forth by the Tennessee Supreme Court in its decision of State v. Preston, 759 S.W.2d 647 (Tenn. 1988). Failure to follow the dictates of the Preston decision could result in the dismissal of the appeal.
The second situation addressed was arguably always appealable, i.e., a sentence complaint where there was no agreement as to sentence. The third provision will apply in cases where guilt was not contested but the record clearly reflects an invalidating error, such as the clear denial of the right to counsel or a conviction under an invalid statute, wherein it would be judicially inefficient to require a post-conviction collateral attack when the error is apparent upon the face of the existing record.
The Rule requires that the defendant must be advised of pertinent appellate rights. In all cases if an appeal is to be waived, this must be put on record.
The problem of retained attorneys initiating an appeal and doing nothing further is addressed by Rule 12 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. This rule addresses the same problem. Retained counsel who commence the appellate process are deemed to be fully retained to complete it.
Counsel considering withdrawal or termination of representation should consult Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 14 (procedure for withdrawal in Court of Appeals and Court of Criminal Appeals) and Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC § 1.16 (declining and terminating representation).
See T.C.A. § 40-26-105, dealing with the expanded circumstances under which the writ of error coram nobis may issue in criminal cases.
Advisory Commission Comments [2011].
The amendment to Rule 37(b)(2)(A) addresses those cases where the certified question of law is not stated in the judgment. In such cases, the amendment removes the requirement that a separate document setting forth the certified question of law be incorporated by reference in the judgment, and it allows the requirements of the Rule to be met by an order entered by the trial court certifying the question.
Advisory Commission Comments [2013].
Rule 37(b)(2) was amended to clarify the provisions regarding the appeal of cases in which the defendant reserves a certified question of law. See State v. Joseph L. Lands, No. W2011-00386-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 203 (Tenn. Crim. App. March 29, 2012) (discussing history of Rule 37(b)(2) and apparent drafting error in earlier revision of the rule).