IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

October 1, 2019 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RONALD TAYLOR

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. C17-04240 J. Robert Carter, Jr., Judge

___________________________________

No. W2019-00502-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., concurring.

I respectfully concur in results with Judge Wedemeyer’s majority opinion. I am 

unable to join with that portion of the opinion addressing Defendant’s Gerstein v. Pugh, 

420 U.S. 103 (1975) “unlawful detention” issue. I agree the issue is waived as a result of 

the failure of Defendant’s trial counsel to raise a pre-trial Gerstein challenge to suppress 

evidence obtained after his warrantless arrest. The State on appeal asserts the issue is 

waived. If this court concludes in this particular case that the issue is waived, we should 

stop our analysis there.

Defendant has the opportunity to seek relief by way of post-conviction 

proceedings if he is denied relief in this direct appeal. Post-conviction counsel would be 

entitled to present, in effect, a Gerstein hearing during post-conviction proceedings in 

order to establish evidence to support a claim of deficient performance by trial counsel 

and the resulting prejudice to Defendant. 

Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(b) provides in part that “[w]hen 

necessary to do substantial justice, an appellate court may consider an error that has 

affected the substantial rights of a party at any time . . . .” (emphasis added). 

Consideration of an error that is waived is not mandatory. If it was, “may” would be 

“shall.” 

To establish plain error, Defendant has the burden of establishing the following 

factors:

(a) the record clearly establishes what occurred in the trial court; 

(b) a clear and unequivocal rule of law has been breached; 

(c) a substantial right of the accused has been adversely affected; 

(d) the accused did not waive the issue for tactical reasons; and 

02/26/2020
- 2 -

(e) consideration of the error is “necessary to do substantial justice.”

State v. Martin, 505 S.W.3d 492, 504 (Tenn. 2016). All five factors must be 

established by the record before this court can recognize the existence of plain error, and 

complete consideration of all the factors is not necessary when it is clear from the record 

that at least one of the factors cannot be established. State v. Bishop, 431 S.W.3d 22, 44 

(Tenn. 2014). Even if all five factors are present, “the plain error must be of such a great 

magnitude that it probably changed the outcome of the trial.” Id. (quoting State v. 

Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626, 642 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)). 

Essentially, if an analysis of whether “plain error” relief should be granted results 

in a conclusion that relief should not be granted, the analysis is dicta because the issue is 

not addressed on its merits. For instance, the majority opinion concludes that 

Defendant’s request to review the issue should not be considered because “consideration 

of the alleged error is not necessary to do substantial justice.” Since it is waived, the 

merits of the Gerstein issue have not been addressed. The majority’s brief statement does 

not conclude that if any error in the trial court occurred, it has been determined to be only 

harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt. The issue is waived because it was not 

presented to the trial court, as asserted by the State in this appeal. If the issue was not 

presented to the trial court, there is nothing to review to establish that Defendant is 

entitled to relief pursuant to plain error review. In my opinion, it is better in this case to 

simply say that this court declines to exercise plain error review than to determine one of 

the Adkisson factors is not established. 

Accordingly, absent being ordered by our Supreme Court to review an issue under 

“plain error” analysis, see State v. Stephano Lee Weilacker, No. M2016-00546-CCA-R3-

CD, slip op. at 1, 2018 WL 5099779 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 19, 2018), I am reluctant to 

include in an opinion a “plain error” review of an issue that has been waived unless the 

court concludes that relief is to be granted.

____________________________________________

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE