State of Tennessee v. Alexander Carney (Dissenting)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Thomas T. Woodall
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 12, 2016 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ALEXANDER K. CARNEY Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 14-620 Donald H. Allen, Judge No. W2015-01265-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 29, 2016 THOMAS T. WOODALL, P.J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. However, when the issue is addressed on its merits, the convictions should be affirmed. The trial court found that Defendant was not wearing his seatbelt, which was a violation of the law, and that fact gave the trooper legal grounds to stop Defendant. By the limited issue in the certified question of law, Defendant (who presumably drafted the certified question) challenged only the stop and seizure of his vehicle on the ground that he was driving without wearing his seatbelt. The State could have insisted that the certified question include the issue relied upon by the majority in order to justify the seizure of the drug evidence, but did not. Thus, neither the State nor this court can go beyond the precise issue presented. The appellate court is “limited to consideration of the question preserved.” State v. Day, 263 S.W.3d 891, 900 (Tenn. 2008). When crafting a certified question, both the defendant and the state would be prudent to review the Rule, craft the certified question to insure that it meets each of the requirements delineated in subsection (b)(2)(A)(i)-(iv) of the Rule, and analyze whether the issue as stated in the judgment order is broad enough to meet the intent of both parties. Although the burden is on the defendant/appellant to see that these prerequisites are in the final order [citation omitted], the state/appellee would be prudent to review the certified question as well because, as it did in this case, a certified question too narrow in scope may work to the state’s detriment. Id. at fn 8. Accordingly, I would address the issue on its merits, find that Defendant is not entitled to relief, and affirm the judgments. ___________________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
