Opinion ID: 1057771
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appeal as of Right from a Denial of a Motion to Modify a Condition of Probation

Text: The defendant appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b), arguing that the Trial Court abused its discretion by failing to give adequate consideration to the Defendant's financial circumstances, the uncertainty of the degree and duration of her support network, and the realities of her earnings versus her expenses. The State countered that Rule 3(b) . . . does not permit direct appeal of a trial court's disposition of a motion to modify the terms of probation. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed with the State that Rule 3(b) does not specifically provide that a defendant may appeal a trial court's decision regarding modification of probation conditions. We agree as well. Unlike civil litigants, who have an appeal as of right from any final judgment, [3] parties in criminal cases do not always have an appeal as of right under the Rules of Appellate Procedure. According to Rule 3(b), a defendant's ability to appeal as of right is limited to any judgment of conviction entered by a trial court from which an appeal lies to the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals: (1) on a plea of not guilty; and (2) on a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, if the defendant entered into a plea agreement but explicitly reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law dispositive of the case pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2)(i) or (iv) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, or if the defendant seeks review of the sentence and there was no plea agreement concerning the sentence, or if the issues presented for review were not waived as a matter of law by the plea of guilty or nolo contendere and if such issues are apparent from the record of the proceedings already had. The defendant may also appeal as of right from an order denying or revoking probation, and from a final judgment in a criminal contempt, habeas corpus, extradition, or post-conviction proceeding. See Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn.2005) (stating that Rule 3(b) does not authorize a direct appeal of a dismissal of a motion to correct an illegal sentence); State v. Adler, 92 S.W.3d 397, 401 (Tenn. 2002) (holding the State does not have an appeal as of right under Rule 3(c) from a trial court's order expunging public records); State v. Leath, 977 S.W.2d 132, 135 (Tenn.Crim.App.1998) (noting that the State cannot appeal as of right a trial court's unilateral decision to modify a defendant's sentence imposed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e)(1)(C)); see also Simon v. State, No. M2003-03008-CCA-R3-PC, 2005 WL 366893,  (Tenn.Crim.App. Feb.16, 2005) (holding that the defendant did not have an appeal as of right or grounds for a common-law writ of certiorari to review a trial court's denial of sentencing credits); Sexton v. State, No. E2003-00910-CCA-R3-PC, 2004 WL 50788,  (Tenn.Crim. App. Jan.12, 2004) (holding that denial of the petitioner's motion for credit for time at liberty was not appealable under Rule 3 or through a common-law writ of certiorari). In Adler, this Court examined whether parties in criminal cases could appeal as of right issues that were not specifically enumerated in the Rule 3(b) or (c). 92 S.W.3d at 400-01. We noted that when interpreting statutory provisions this Court follows the Latin maxim of  expressio unius est exclusio alterius, meaning `the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of all things not mentioned.' Id. at 400 (quoting Limbaugh v. Coffee Med. Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73, 84 (Tenn.2001)). Rule 3(b) does not specifically enumerate that a defendant may appeal as of right a denial of a motion to modify a condition of probation. Thus, the defendant does not have an appeal as of right to challenge the trial court's decision.