Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman v. State of Tennessee - Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part

Syllabus

I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion insofar as it holds that the post-conviction trial court must first determine that a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief before a District Attorney General is allowed to negotiate a settlement of criminal convictions and/or sentences which are the subject of a post-conviction proceeding. The majority opinion prohibits the 31 District Attorneys General in Tennessee from evaluating a petition for post-conviction relief, determining that it has some merit, and concluding that it is appropriate to concede a petitioner is entitled to post-conviction relief. In so doing, the majority opinion prevents the State's statutorily designated attorney from negotiating the most favorable settlement of the challenged underlying charges before a post-conviction trial court grants full post-conviction relief. If a District Attorney General must wait until the post-conviction trial court rules that post-conviction relief must be granted, the District Attorney General, as in the case sub judice, might very well have a difficult task to locate witnesses and/or physical evidence to present in a new trial. Consequently the State would be required to negotiate from a position of weakness as a result of mandating that the court first grant post-conviction relief prior to the State negotiating a new settlement of the challenged offenses. As a result, the majority opinion undermines the authority of each District Attorney General in this state.