Court: Haslam overhaul of probation unconstitutional
A Tennessee appeals court on Tuesday said a key prong of Gov. Bill Haslam’s overhaul of the state’s probation system was unconstitutional because it violates defendants’ rights and encroaches on judicial authority in criminal matters.
Haslam pushed the changes in 2016 as part of the wide-ranging Public Safety Act. That portion of the law, which aimed to shrink the prison population, gave probation officers the power to dole out punishments — like addiction treatment or community service — to defendants who violated probation.
The goal, according to the Haslam administration, was to stop sending people to prison for low-level probation violations like failure to pay fines or missing an appointment. As a result, those probation violations would be considered by probation officers, not the court system.
But the Criminal Court of Appeals said the General Assembly had “impermissibly encroached upon the judicial powers of the courts” by passing the law.
The appeals court also said the portion of the law changing the probation system “falls woefully short” of providing due process for defendants, who would not be able to challenge new punishments in court with an attorney.
A spokeswoman for the state attorney general’s office said officials were “reviewing the decision” and did not say if the office would appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Haslam spokeswoman Jennifer Donnals said Wednesday the law had been successful. In a statement, Donnals highlighted a reduction in people going to prison for minor probation violations.
Donnals said the law had led to “a reduction in the number of offenders on community supervision who return to prison for non-criminal violations by successfully returning those offenders to compliance through a system of proportionate and immediate responses.”
The appeals court ruling, which said that system violated the Tennessee Constitution, came in the case of A.B. Price, Jr., who in 2017 reached a plea deal agreeing to 10 years probation for two counts of sexual battery.
Henry County Judge Donald E. Parish took issue with the deal because the probation would be subject to the new Public Safety Act.
Parish said the state could not force him to accept the new probation conditions included in the law, because he felt it stripped him of his authority in a criminal case and put unconstitutional burdens on Price.
The state attorney general’s office appealed and defended the law. Price’s defense attorney backed the judge’s argument on appeal.
The appeals court sided with Parish, saying the portions of the law that applied to probation reform “prevent the judiciary from accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions regarding sentencing.”
“Mandating all probationers to be subject to the graduated sanctions system for probation violations, no matter how minor, strikes at the very heart of the trial court’s inherent judicial power,” Judge Camille R. McMullen wrote for the majority.
Further, McMullen wrote, defendants did not have a robust opportunity to challenge punishments handed out in the new system, as they would if the matters were taken up in the court.
“Of import to our analysis is the lack of any hearing during which the offender may present their own evidence, cross-examine adverse witnesses, and see the government’s evidence against them,” the opinion read.
In a dissent to the majority opinion, Judge Alan E. Glenn said the trial court had erred by wading into the issue, since there was an unexamined possibility for a conflict of interest, with the judicial branch of government trying to wrestle power back from the executive branch.
The ruling only addressed a portion of the Public Safety Act that changed probation protocol. Other parts of the law, which remain unchallenged, increased penalties for domestic violence, aggravated burglary and drug trafficking.
Reach Adam Tamburin at 615-7265986 and atamburin@tennessean.com. Follow him on Twitter @tamburintweets.