Petitioner asks Tennessee Supreme Court to overturn plea, citing counsel—s failure to explain sentencing change

Madeline Strasser, a third-year law student arguing for the petitioner, asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to reverse a trial court—s denial of post-conviction relief and to void a nolo contendere plea because trial counsel failed to inform the defendant about a material change in the sentencing law.

Strasser said the criminal saving statute, enacted in 2014, requires courts to impose the lesser penalty when a subsequent act reduces punishment and that the Tennessee Public Safety Act of 2016, effective Jan. 1, 2017, reduced penalties for some theft offenses while the petitioner—s case was pending. "May it please the court, we respectfully ask this court reverse the decision in the trial court," she told the panel.

The nut of the petitioner—s argument is that trial counsel knew the statute applied but did not tell Mr. Cozzi, causing him to plead to an illegal sentence and depriving him of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and Article I, Section 9 of the Tennessee Constitution. Strasser cited Strickland v. Washington and Tennessee precedent, including Calvert v. State, to argue that counsel—s admitted failure to explain sentencing consequences was both deficient and prejudicial. She told the court Mr. Cozzi testified at the post-conviction hearing that, had he known of the changed sentencing scheme, "he would not have taken his guilty plea and would have insisted on going to trial."

Joseph Fiorelli, arguing on behalf of the State, countered that counsel was not deficient and that the legal landscape was unsettled at the time the plea was entered. Fiorelli noted that a panel decision of this court (State v. Menke) initially held the saving statute did not apply and that the Tennessee Supreme Court later reversed that panel. He said the uncertainty made it unreasonable to expect trial counsel to predict the appellate outcome and added that the plea produced a substantial negotiated benefit: the petitioner received a one-year sentence on a class E felony rather than a longer term the State initially sought.

The parties disputed timeline and facts the record bears on the plea. The transcript indicates the offense occurred in July 2016, the Public Safety Act took effect Jan. 1, 2017, and the petitioner pleaded on April 29, 2019. The record also references a vehicle value of $37,100 that the lower court relied on in classifying the offense; restitution or a separate proven amount for that figure was not shown in the plea hearing record as discussed during argument. Counsel for the State told the court the petitioner—s one-year sentence has expired.

Petitioners— counsel relied on Calvert to argue that a defendant—s uncontradicted testimony that he would have rejected the plea is sufficient to establish prejudice. The State invoked cases including Hill v. Lockhart and the earlier Menke panel opinion to emphasize legal uncertainty and to dispute the sufficiency of the petitioner—s testimony, noting the post-conviction court implicitly did not credit the petitioner—s claim.

At argument, the petitioner asked the court to reverse and remand for a new trial or otherwise grant post-conviction relief. The State asked the court to affirm the post-conviction denial. The panel reserved decision; no ruling was issued during the oral argument session.

The case raises a legal question about how and when the criminal saving statute applies to pending cases after statutory sentencing changes and about counsel—s duty to advise clients when appellate developments create uncertainty in sentencing law. The court will resolve those issues in a written opinion to follow.