Cyntoia Brown Appeal in Sixth Circuit Court

Case: 16-6738 Document: 24 Filed: 01/08/2018 Page: 1
CASE NO. 16-6738

____________________________________________________
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
________________________
CYNTOIA BROWN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN JORDAN, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
On Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
_____________________________________________
BRIEF OF APPELLANT CYNTOIA BROWN

_______________________________________
Abbe David Lowell Charles W. Bone

Christopher D. Man Edward M. Yarbrough
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP Bone McAllester Norton, PLLC
799 9th St., NW; Ste 1000 511 Union Street; Ste 1600
Washington, DC 20001 Nashville, TN 37219
(202) 662-0200 (615) 238-6300
J. Houston Gordon Paul J. Bruno

Lyle Reid 40 Music Square East
114 W. Liberty Ave. Nashville, TN 37203
Covington, TN 38019 (615) 251-9500
(901) 476-7100
Joe G. Riley, Jr. C. Mark Pickrell

115 Lake Street Lead Counsel
Ridgeley, TN 38080 5701 Old Harding Pk; Ste 200
(731) 264-5671 Nashville, TN 37205
(615) 352-9588
Attorneys for Cyntoia Brown

_____________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................ii
STATEMENT REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT .......................1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................2
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................5
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................12
ARGUMENT ................................................14
I. EIGHTH AMENDMENT ..............................15
A. Ms. Brown's sentence of mandatory

life imprisonment as a juvenile
violated the Supreme Court's
decision in Miller v. Alabama,
567 U.S. 460 (2012). .....................16
B. Even if Ms. Brown is eligible for

parole after 51 years, her mandatory
sentence of life imprisonment
violated the Supreme Court's
decision in Miller v. Alabama,
567 U.S. 460 (2012). .....................22
II. ACTUAL INNOCENCE ..............................24
In light of the clear evidence presented

in State court, Ms. Brown's conviction
violated the Supreme Court's decisions
in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970);
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977);
and Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979),
because she did not possess the requisite
mental state for first-degree murder. .........25
CONCLUSION ..............................................32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...............................33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................33
DESIGNATION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS .......................34
ADDENDUM (Myrick v. Tennessee) ..........................35
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1291..........................................3
28 U.S.C. § 2241..........................................2
28 U.S.C. § 2243.........................................14
28 U.S.C. § 2253..........................................3
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) .....................................14
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)...............................14, 20
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2)...............................14, 31
28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1)...................................32
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-4-108 ..............................17
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-5-108 ..............................17
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(c) ..........................16
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(h) ..........................16
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i) ......................passim
Rules
Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 23 ....................................20
Cases
Brown v. Tennessee, 2014 WL 5780718

(Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. November 6, 2014) ...........8, 18
Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2011) ...........21
Davis, In re, 557 U.S. 952 (2009) .......................26
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) ...................12
Hill v. Snyder, 821 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2016) ............17
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) ....12, 13, 25, 32
ii
McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997) ...14
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)...............passim
Myrick v. Tennessee, 2014 WL 5089347

(Tenn. Ct. App. October 8, 2014) ..................passim
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977) ..12, 13, 25, 32
Perry v. Tennessee, 2004 WL 115381

(Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. January 21, 2004) ............18
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) ...................12
Sheets v. Moore, 97 F.3d 165 (6th Cir. 1996) ............21
Starks v. Easterling, No. 14-6230

(6th Cir. August 23, 2016) ...........................21
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) ....................26
Tennessee v. Brown, 2009 WL 1038275

(Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 20, 2009) .................6
Tennessee v. Polochak, 2015 WL 226566

(Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. January 16, 2015) ............18
Vaughn v. Tennessee, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) ........18
White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 1997) .........14
Winship, In re, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) .........12, 13, 25, 32
Miscellaneous
A.C. Spaulding, et al.,

Prisoner survival inside and outside of the institution;
American Journal of Epidemiology 173(5): 479-87(2011) ...23
iii
STATEMENT REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT
Cyntoia Brown respectfully requests oral argument. The
two legal issues certified for appeal by the district court
are substantial and complicated.
The first issue involves important questions of law
involving the application of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460
(2012), to juveniles in Tennessee who are tried and sentenced
to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. The
applicability of Miller to this case is complicated, as the
State courts and district court below had assumed that Ms.
Brown would be eligible for parole after serving 51 years of
her sentence, but a 2014 decision of the Tennessee Court of
Appeals, Myrick v. Tennessee, 2014 WL 5089347 (Tenn. Ct. App.
October 8, 2014)(see Addendum), suggests that Ms. Brown will
never be eligible for parole at all. Certifying the question
of whether Ms. Brown ever would be eligible for parole to the
Tennessee Supreme Court may be warranted before addressing the
issue of how Miller applies to Ms. Brown's sentence.
The second issue on appeal, concerning Ms. Brown’s
ability to form the mens rea necessary for first-degree
murder, is complicated as well. It turns upon multiple days
of detailed expert psychiatric and psychological testimony.
Given the novel and important constitutional questions
involved, and the scientific evidence involved, oral argument
should aid the Court in deciding this case.
1
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Cyntoia Brown, then a juvenile, was indicted on February
11, 2005, on charges of first-degree murder, felony murder,
and especially aggravated robbery. (R. 14, Ex. 1; Notice of
Filing; Pg ID 243-47.) She was tried as an adult and was
convicted on all counts. (Id. at 419, 421-22.) After trial,
sentencing, appeal, and post-conviction proceedings in the
State of Tennessee, Ms. Brown filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee. (R. 1; Petition; Pg ID 1.) The
district court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over Ms.
Brown's petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254.
The State of Tennessee opposed the Petition (R. 15;
Response; Pg ID 4909), and the petition was denied by the
district court on October 28, 2016. (R. 26; Order; Pg ID
5503.) Ms. Brown filed a timely notice of appeal on November
28, 2016, while a motion to reconsider was pending. (R. 29;
Notice of Appeal; Pg ID 5525.) The district court
subsequently denied the motion to reconsider and entered an
order issuing a certificate of appealability on two issues.
(R. 43; Order; Pg ID 5666.)
On October 13, 2017, Ms. Brown filed a timely amendment
to her notice of appeal based on the denial of her motion for
reconsideration. (R. 44; Amended Notice of Appeal; Pg ID
5675.)
2
This Court possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over
this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 28 U.S.C. § 2253,
which grant appellate jurisdiction to the United States Courts
of Appeals over final judgments in habeas proceedings when a
certificate of appealability has been granted.
3
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The district court granted a certificate of appealability
on two issues:
(1) "Whether Brown's mandatory minimum life sentence is
unconstitutional?"; and
(2) "Whether Brown was actually innocent because she was
incapable of forming the requisite mens rea to commit the
crimes for which she was convicted?"
4
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Cyntoia Brown's mother continually consumed alcohol --
sometimes over a "fifth" a day -- while she was pregnant with
Ms. Brown, resulting in Ms. Brown being born with a mental
defect, Alcohol-Related Neurological Disorder. (R. 14, Ex.
31; Mitchell Aff.; Pg ID 3709; R. 14, Ex. 29; Post-Conviction
Hrg. Tr. II; Pg ID 3387, 3432, 3451.) Subsequently abandoned
by her mother, Ms. Brown showed early episodes of psychosis,
and she started to have difficulty in elementary school,
despite an IQ of 134. (Id. at 3387, 3482, 3539.)
In 2004, when Ms. Brown was 16, she was living with and
being sexually abused by a 24-year-old man, Garion "Cut
Throat" McGlothen. (R. 1; Petition;, Pg ID 7; R. 1, Ex. 1;
State Post-Conviction trial-court decision; Pg ID 38.)
McGlothen was extremely violent, physically and sexually
abusing Ms. Brown. (R. 1 at 10; R. 1, Ex. 1 at 38; R. 14, Ex.
29; State Post-Conviction Tr. II; Pg ID 3391.) McGlothen
ordered Ms. Brown, against her will, out onto the streets of
Nashville to earn money as a prostitute, providing her with a
pistol for protection. (R. 14, Ex. 29; State Post-Conviction
Tr. II; Pg ID 3396.)
Ms. Brown met 43-year-old Johnny M. Allen at a drive-in
restaurant, where he solicited her as a prostitute. (R. 1,
Ex. 1 at 39.) Allen took Ms. Brown to his house to knowingly
commit statutory rape. (Id.) While there, Ms. Brown became
afraid of Allen, based on his weapons cache and his strange
5
demeanor and behavior, and she shot him with her pistol,
killing him. (Id.; See also, R. 14, Ex. 19; State Post-
Conviction Tr. II; Pg ID 3400-05.) Fearing returning to
McGlothen empty-handed, Ms. Brown then stole money and other
property from Allen's house. (Id. at 3407.)
Cyntoia Brown was charged in Davidson County, Tennessee
as an adult, indicted on counts of first-degree murder, felony
murder, and aggravated robbery. (R. 14; Notice of Filing; Pg
ID 243-47.)
The issue of Ms. Brown's mental capacity first came up at
a pretrial suppression hearing. At that hearing, Dr. William
Bernet, a psychiatrist, testified that he had conducted a
psychological examination of Ms. Brown and had diagnosed her
with borderline personality disorder. See Tennessee v. Brown,
2009 WL 1038275 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 20, 2009) (The
decision is located in the record at R. 1, Ex. 3; Opinion of
the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals; Pg ID 114.) Dr.
Bernet testified that Ms. Brown's score on the Global
Assessment Functioning Scale, 35 out of 100, showed major
psychological impairment in several areas of life-function:
judgment, thinking, communication, work/school, and family
relations. (Id. at 115.)
The trial court denied Ms. Brown's suppression motion,
and Ms. Brown was tried on the indictment. The jury convicted
Ms. Brown of first-degree and felony murder, and especially
aggravated robbery. (R. 14; Notice of Filing; Pg ID 421-22.)
6
At sentencing, the trial court merged the two murder charges
and sentenced Ms. Brown to life in prison for murder, plus
twenty years for the robbery verdict, to be served
concurrently. (Id. at 105.) The sentence of life
imprisonment was the minimum sentence available under Tenn.
Code Ann. § 39-13-202(c)(2004).
On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
reversed Ms. Brown's conviction of especially aggravated
robbery, which was reduced to aggravated robbery on remand.
(R.1, Ex. 3; Opinion of the Tennessee Court of Criminal
Appeals; Pg ID 128.) The court affirmed the remainder of Ms.
Brown's conviction and sentence. Id.
Ms. Brown sought review of the Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals' decision by the Tennessee Supreme Court,
which was denied. (R. 14, Ex. 25; Order; Pg ID 3002.)
Ms. Brown, pro se, filed a State post-conviction petition
seeking retrial based on ineffective assistance of counsel for
failure to put on a mental-health defense, particularly, a
defense based on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome; for failure to call
Brown as a witness at trial; and for newly-discovered evidence
(especially regarding Fetal Alcohol Syndrome) proving actual
innocence. (R. 14, Ex. 26; Petition; Pg ID 3060.)
Counsel was appointed for Ms. Brown (R. 14, Ex. 26;
Amended Petition; Pg ID 3081), and, through counsel, she
amended her post-conviction petition. In her amended
petition, Ms. Brown additionally argued that her mandatory
7
sentence of life imprisonment as a juvenile violated her
rights under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. (R. 14, Ex. 26; Amended Petition; Pg ID 3083.)
In the State post-conviction proceeding, Ms. Brown
presented evidence from multiple mental-health professionals
regarding Ms. Brown's exposure to alcohol in utero, and her
then-current mental condition. Brown v. Tennessee, 2014 WL
5780718 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. November 6, 2014). (The
decision is located in the record at R. 1, Ex. 2; Opinion; Pg
ID 80.)
That evidence was described by the Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals. Dr. Adler, a clinical and forensic
psychiatrist, had diagnosed Ms. Brown with Alcohol Related
Neurodevelopmental Disorder ("ARND"), including extensive
testimony regarding the effect of ARND on decisionmaking and
processing, resulting in Ms. Brown being "seriously impaired"
by her severe mental disease and defect. (Id. at 87.) Dr.
Paul Connor, a neuropsychologist, testified that Ms. Brown had
deficits in five domains of thinking, indicating
"quintessentially the pattern that I would be expecting to see
with fetal alcohol." (Id. at 89.) A third witness, Dr.
Natalie Novick Brown (no relation), a clinical psychologist,
corroborated and supported the other expert testimony
regarding the effect of fetal alcohol exposure on Ms. Brown
while she was developing in utero, and regarding the fact that
Ms. Brown's ability to make decisions correctly "was impaired"
8
such that she was mentally incapable of forming the requisite
mens rea. (Id. at 89-90.)
The State did not call any expert witness of its own or
introduce evidence to rebut the testimony of the three mental-
health experts.
Despite the evidence that Ms. Brown introduced, and while
finding that Ms. Brown suffered from ARND, the Tennessee trial
court denied relief. (Id. at 94.) On appeal to the Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals, Ms. Brown again contested the
constitutionality of her mandatory life sentence and also
argued that she was actually innocent due to an inability to
form the requisite mens rea for the crime. (R. 14, Ex. 37;
Brief of Cyntoia Brown; Pg ID 80, 85-94.)
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the
trial court's denial of Ms. Brown's post-conviction petition.
(Brown v. Tennessee; R. 1, Ex. 2; Pg ID 104.) With regard to
Ms. Brown's sentence, the appellate court distinguished Miller
v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), on the ground that the
Supreme Court's decision only made sentencing of juveniles to
life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
unconstitutional, whereas "life without the possibility of
parole is not the sentence at issue here." (Id. at 104.) In
addition, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held that,
while the trial court "concluded that the Petitioner suffered
from ARND, . . . the Petitioner had to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that no jury would have convicted her in
9
light of the new evidence" in order to show her actual
innocence, and it did not believe that that standard was met.
(Id. at 101.)
Ms. Brown's petition for review by the Tennessee Supreme
Court was denied. (R.1, Ex. 39; Order; Pg ID 4908.)
Ms. Brown filed a timely petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, raising, among other issues, the two
issues now before this Court. (R. 1; Petition; Pg ID 1.)
With regard to Ms. Brown's sentence, Ms. Brown asserted as her
first claim, "The mandatory life sentence imposed upon the
Petitioner/Child is unconstitutional, in violation of the 8th
and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution." (Id.
at 6.)
The district court denied Ms. Brown's petition. (R. 25;
Memorandum; Pg ID 5488.) With regard to her sentence of life
imprisonment, the district court held that the State courts
"correctly noted that the prisoner was sentenced to life
imprisonment with the possibility of parole, thus rendering
the Miller decision inapplicable to this case." (Id. at 5501-
02.)
Ms. Brown appealed (R. 29; Notice of Appeal; Pg ID 5525)
after filing a Rule 59 motion for reconsideration (R. 27;
Motion; Pg ID. 5503). The district court refrained from
ruling on the Rule 59 motion (R. 38; Order; Pg ID 5654),
believing that it lacked jurisdiction. This Court ordered the
10
district court to rule on the Rule 59 motion. (R. 41; Order;
Pg ID 5661.) On remand, the district court denied the Rule 59
motion and granted a Certificate of Appealability as to two
issues: 1) whether Ms. Brown's mandatory life sentence is
unconstitutional; and 2) whether Ms. Brown was actually
innocent because she was incapable of forming the requisite
mens rea to commit the crimes for which she was convicted.
(R. 43; Order; Pg ID 5666.)
This appeal followed.
11
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The district court erred in refusing to grant Ms. Brown's
habeas petition. The last State-court decision to consider
Ms. Brown's case on the merits, that of the Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals, contravened the Supreme Court's decisions in
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012); Graham v. Florida, 560
U.S. 48 (2010); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970); Patterson
v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977); and Jackson v. Virginia, 443
U.S. 307 (1979).
I. Eighth Amendment.
Under Miller v. Alabama, Ms. Brown's sentence of
imprisonment for life, for an act committed while she was a
juvenile, is unconstitutional. While some courts have
suggested that defendants in Tennessee are eligible for parole
after 51 years, the premise of those decisions was vitiated by
a 2014 decision of the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Myrick v.
Tennessee, 2014 WL 5089347 (Tenn. Ct. App. October 8, 2014).
After Myrick, there should be no doubt that, as a matter of
law, a juvenile sentenced in Tennessee to life imprisonment
for first-degree murder is not eligible for parole. For that
reason, the final State court's decision denying Ms. Brown
post-conviction relief was contrary to existing Supreme Court
precedent. The district court should have granted Ms. Brown's
habeas petition on that basis. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
Moreover, in Ms. Brown's case, the Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals, in contrast to the Tennessee Court of
12
Appeals ruling in Myrick, held that Tennessee's statutory
scheme is constitutional under Miller because Ms. Brown
supposedly is eligible for parole after 51 years of
incarceration, when she is 68 years old. (R. 1, Ex. 3;
Opinion of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals; Pg ID
114.) But even if Ms. Brown were eligible for parole at age
68, that would still violate the Supreme Court's requirement
in Miller that the State "must provide 'some meaningful
opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity
and rehabilitation.'" Miller, 567 U.S. at 479 (quoting
Graham, 560 U.S. 48, 75).
II. Actual Innocence.
The Tennessee court's ultimate finding that Ms. Brown
possessed the mental capacity sufficient to possess the mens
rea for first-degree murder was an unreasonable determination
of the facts in light of the evidence presented in State
court. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). As a 16-year-old
suffering from the lasting effects of fetal alcohol exposure,
the unrebutted scientific facts presented in State court
clearly showed that Ms. Brown was not capable of the mental
state sufficient for a murder conviction. The district court
erred in denying Ms. Brown's habeas petition, based on the
Supreme Court's decisions in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358
(1970); Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977); and
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
13
ARGUMENT
Standard of Review and

Legal Standards
This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a
petition for writ of habeas corpus de novo. E.g., White v.
McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593, 595 (6th Cir. 1997); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997).
28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that a court entertaining an
application for a writ of habeas corpus "shall forthwith award
the writ . . . unless it appears from the application that
the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides that United States district courts
"shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court only on the ground that he is in custody in
violation of the Constitution . . . of the United States." 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) provides that a State prisoner asserting a
violation of the U.S. Constitution, whose constitutional claim
has been adjudicated in State court, shall receive federal
habeas relief when the State court's decision has "resulted in
a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined
by the Supreme Court of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(2) provides that habeas relief is appropriate when the
State-court decision under federal review was "based on an
14
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding."
I. EIGHTH AMENDMENT
In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the Supreme
Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits States from
sentencing juveniles to a sentence of life imprisonment
without eligibility for parole. Critically, when a juvenile
is eligible for parole, such parole schemes "must provide
'some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on
demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.'" Miller, 567 U.S.
at 479 (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75).
In Ms. Brown's case, the Tennessee Court of Criminal
Appeals held that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v.
Alabama does not apply to Ms. Brown's sentence of life
imprisonment, asserting, without discussion or reasoning of
any kind, that Ms. Brown is eligible for parole after 51
years. As a matter of law, however, the Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals' decision was directly contrary to Miller v.
Alabama and was an unreasonable application of the Supreme
Court's decision. For that reason, the district court erred
in failing to issue the writ.
15
A. Ms. Brown's sentence of mandatory life imprisonment

as a juvenile violated the Supreme Court's decision
in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
Under Tennessee law, Ms. Brown was automatically
sentenced to life imprisonment for her murder conviction.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(c) (2004 & Supp. 2017)
provides that a person convicted of first-degree murder shall
be punished by: "(1) Death; (2) Imprisonment for life without
the possibility of parole; or (3) Imprisonment for life." On
its face, Tennessee's statute for first-degree murder contains
an ostensible distinction between a sentence of life
imprisonment and a sentence of life imprisonment without the
possibility of parole. The Tennessee General Assembly,
however eliminated the possibility of parole for defendants
convicted of first-degree murder in 1995. That year, the
Tennessee legislature passed an Act, 1995 Tenn. Pub. Act ch.
492, now codified at Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-501(i), which
provides:
(1) There shall be no release eligibility for a

person committing an offense, on or after July 1,
1995, that is enumerated in subdivision (i)(2). The
person shall serve one hundred percent (100%) of the
sentence imposed by the court less sentence credits
earned and retained. . . .
(2) The offenses to which subdivision (i)(1) applies

are:
(A) Murder in the first degree;
. . . .
16
As explained by the Tennessee Court of Appeals1 in 2014,
in passing Section 40-35-501(i), the Tennessee legislature
left intact the parole eligibility rules for offenses
committed prior to July 1, 1995, codified at Tenn. Code Ann. §
40-35-501(h). Myrick v. Tennessee, 2014 WL 5089347(Tenn. Ct.
App. October 8, 2014)(slip op., see Addendum). For
convictions after that date, however, the Tennessee Court of
Appeals directly held that defendants convicted of the
enumerated offenses in section 40-35-501(i)(2) "[are] not
eligible for parole and must serve [their] entire sentence."
(Id. at 5.)
The Tennessee statutory scheme, in which defendants
convicted of first-degree murder are, in one statutory
provision, sentenced to life imprisonment, while a separate
statutory provision eliminates the possibility of parole for
those defendants, is similar to the Michigan statutory scheme
already found to be unconstitutional by this Court. Cf. Hill
v. Snyder, 821 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2016).
In Ms. Brown's case, the Tennessee Court of Criminal
Appeals assumed -- probably based on a reading of section 39-
1
In Tennessee, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals is an
intermediate appellate court with jurisdiction over direct
criminal appeals and specific statutory criminal matters.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-5-108. It properly possessed
jurisdiction over Ms. Brown's direct appeal and post-
conviction appeal. The Tennessee Court of Appeals possesses
intermediate appellate jurisdiction in all civil cases,
including chancery actions seeking an injunction or mandamus.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-4-108. For that reason, the Tennessee
Court of Appeals possessed jurisdiction over Myrick's appeal
17
13-202(c) alone -- that Ms. Brown has the possibility of
parole. See Brown v. Tennessee, 2014 WL 5780718 (Tenn. Ct.
Crim. App. November 6, 2014). Accord, Tennessee v. Polochak,
2015 WL 226566 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. January 16, 2015); Perry
v. Tennessee, 2004 WL 115381 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. January 21,
2004).
In its decision in Ms. Brown's case, the Tennessee Court
of Criminal Appeals did not cite the then-recent Tennessee
Court of Appeals Myrick decision, nor did the Tennessee Court
of Criminal Appeals discuss the effect of Section 40-35-501(i)
on Tennessee's statutory scheme. The Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals merely asserted, when applying Miller v.
Alabama to Ms. Brown's case, without citation to section 40-
35-501(i)or any reasoned discussion whatsoever, "As the post-
conviction court noted, though, life without the possibility
of parole is not the sentence at issue here." (R.1, Ex. 1 at
25.)
The confusion in Tennessee law regarding the availability
of parole after the 1995 statute is understandable. In 2006,
the Tennessee Supreme Court noted that "there was a conflict
in the provisions" of Tennessee's statutory scheme after the
1995 amendment. Vaughn v. Tennessee, 202 S.W.3d 106, 118
(Tenn. 2006). The Tennessee Supreme Court referenced a 1997
opinion of the Tennessee Attorney General, who opined that
"[S]ubsection (i) operates, in so far as it conflicts with the
provisions of the existing statute governing release
18
eligibility, to raise the floor from 60% of sixty years . . .
to 100% of sixty years, reduced by not more than 15% of
eligible credits." Id. (citing Tenn. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 97-
098 (1997)). The Tennessee Supreme Court decision did not
resolve the conflict in Tennessee's law, however, because the
only question before the court was the defendant's Sixth
Amendment claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for
simply failing to identify the inconsistency in Tennessee's
law and failing to object to an incorrect jury instruction
regarding the sentence that that defendant faced -- a failure
that was the same whether the defendant was eligible for
parole after 25 years, 51 years, or never. Id. at 119.
Particularly in light of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), the
disagreement between the Tennessee Court of Appeals and the
Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals regarding Tennessee's 1995
statutory scheme is salient. If the Tennessee Court of
Appeals is correct regarding Tennessee's law, Ms. Brown is
never eligible for parole under Tennessee law, but she is
unquestionably entitled now to federal habeas relief under
Miller v Alabama. If the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
is correct regarding Tennessee law, Ms. Brown is eligible for
parole under Tennessee law in 2055, but she may not be
entitled to federal habeas relief now. At the earliest,
resolution of this disagreement between the Tennessee
appellate courts could take until 2046 -- the first year that
19
a 1995-or-later convicted prisoner's request for parole will
become ripe.
Ms. Brown need not wait until 2046 (or, in her case,
until 2055) to find out whether she has been entitled to
federal habeas relief all along, assuming that the Tennessee
Court of Appeals' Myrick decision is ultimately upheld by the
Tennessee Supreme Court. The Tennessee Supreme Court has a
rule permitting certification of questions of law to it, Tenn.
Sup. Ct. R. 23 (the court "may, at its discretion, answer
questions of law certified to it by . . . a Court of Appeals
of the United States . . . .").
This Court, of course, may parse the Tennessee statutes
and determine that the Tennessee Court of Appeals' decision in
Myrick is the most thoroughly reasoned, and reasonable,
interpretation of Tennessee law. If so, then the Tennessee
Court of Criminal Appeals' decision in this case is directly
contrary to Miller, and habeas relief is appropriate now.
Alternatively, if it is unclear to this Court whether Ms.
Brown is eligible for parole under Tennessee law, the Court
should certify that question to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
While Myrick and the statutes at issue would seem to make
clear that Ms. Brown is ineligible for parole, there
undoubtedly are opposite (and pivotal) State-court
interpretations of Tennessee's statutory scheme. The fairest
and most efficient way to definitively answer this question
would be to certify the question of whether Ms. Brown is
20
entitled to parole under Tennessee law to the Tennessee
Supreme Court, so that the Court can address Ms. Brown's
Miller claim in the proper legal context.2
It would be tragic and unfair for Ms. Brown to apply for
parole in 2055 and be denied eligibility by the Tennessee
courts, consistent with the Tennessee Court of Appeals' Myrick
decision and the plain language of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-
501(i). That outcome would mean that Ms. Brown actually was
entitled to federal habeas relief 37 years earlier, but she
was denied federal relief when it could (and should) have been
granted.
2
In Starks v. Easterling, No. 14-6230 (6th Cir. August 23,
2016)(unpublished decision), cert. denied, __ U.S. __, 137 S.
Ct. 819 (2017), a panel of this Court stated, without
discussion or citation, that the petitioner, who received a
sentence of life imprisonment in Tennessee for felony murder
committed while a juvenile, "will be eligible for parole when
he reaches seventy-seven." The panel's decision in Starks is
not binding on the Court in Ms. Brown's case, however, because
prior unpublished decisions are not binding under the Prior
Panel Rule. Cf. 6th Cir. R. 32.1 ("Published panel opinions
are binding on later panels."). See also, Sheets v. Moore, 97
F.3d 164, 167 (6th Cir. 1996)(unpublished opinions "carry no
precedential weight . . . [and] have no binding effect on
anyone other than the parties to the action."); Crump v.
Lafler, 657 F.3d 393, 405 (6th Cir. 2011)(same).
Nor should the Starks panel's decision be persuasive in
this case, because the Myrick decision and the conflicting
Tennessee State-court interpretations of Tennessee's statutory
scheme were not brought to its attention, and were not
squarely addressed by the panel.
21
B. Even if Ms. Brown is eligible for parole after 51

years, her mandatory sentence of life imprisonment
violated the Supreme Court's decision in Miller v.
Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals held that
Tennessee's statutory scheme is constitutional under Miller
because Ms. Brown supposedly is eligible for parole after 51
years of incarceration, at the age of 68. (R. 1, Ex. 3;
Opinion of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals; Pg ID
114.) Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that Ms. Brown
is eligible for parole after 51 years, that circumstance would
still violate Miller's requirement that the State "must
provide 'some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based
on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.'" Miller, 567
U.S. at 479 (quoting Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75
(2010)). When the Supreme Court held in Miller that the
States must provide "some meaningful opportunity to obtain
release," it surely contemplated that such an opportunity
would reasonably arise within an inmate's anticipated
lifespan.
As was shown by Ms. Brown in her State post-conviction
proceeding, if Ms. Brown is not eligible for parole for at
least 51 years, she is, at best, likely to live no more than
ten years after becoming eligible for parole, based on the
overall non-incarcerated, non-FAS population life
expectancies. (R. 14, Ex. 31; Post-Conviction Hrg. Ex. 2
22
(Life-Expectancy Tables); Pg. ID 3713.)3 As an incarcerated
person who is also a victim of fetal alcohol poisoning, Ms.
Brown is likely to die in prison well before her ostensible
minimum of 51 years of incarceration has expired.
Moreover, as Dr. Novick Brown testified at the State
post-conviction hearing, in normal individuals, the brain is
fully formed, and mature decisionmaking is established, at
approximately 25 years of age. (R. 14, Ex. 30, State Post-
Conviction Tr. vol. III; Pg ID 3574.) Even with a victim of
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, while the maturation of the
decisionmaking process is slower, the maturation of their
decisionmaking process is set by the victim's early 30s. (Id.
at 3578.) Therefore, based on the clear and unrebutted
scientific evidence presented in State court, Ms. Brown is
expected to be able to demonstrate the level of her
rehabilitation and maturity decades before the State of
Tennessee ever gives her that opportunity.
The half-century wait before Cyntoia Brown has a
meaningful opportunity to demonstrate her "maturity and
rehabilitation" is insufficient to satisfy the minimum
3
The life expectancy of incarcerated individuals is
significantly lower than the overall general population. A.C.
Spaulding, et al.; Prisoner survival inside and outside of the
institution; American Journal of Epidemiology 173(5): 479-
87(2011)(risk of death, over a fifteen-year period, for
incarcerated inmates is 43% higher than for non-incarcerated
individuals). Based on the life expectancy of an incarcerated
African-American woman like Ms. Brown, who suffers from
congenital alcohol-related defects, it is likely that she will
not survive 51 years in prison.
23
constitutional requirement mandated by the Supreme Court in
Graham and Miller.
II. ACTUAL INNOCENCE
In light of the clear evidence presented in State court,

Ms. Brown's conviction violated the Supreme Court's
decisions in In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970);
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977); and Jackson
v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), because she did not
possess the requisite mental state for first-degree
murder.
The main premise of the Supreme Court's decision in
Miller v. Alabama is that "children are constitutionally
different from adults for purposes of sentencing." Miller,
567 U.S. at 471. The Supreme Court emphasized that juveniles
lack maturity, are impulsive, are vulnerable to outside
pressure, and their character is not well-formed or fixed.
Id. The Supreme Court based its decision on "science and
social science as well." Id.
Everything that the Supreme Court considered in reaching
its decision in Miller is even more striking with regard to
children who are exposed to alcohol in utero. The experts who
testified at Ms. Brown's post-conviction proceeding -- each
operating independently from the other -- demonstrated that
children who have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Alcohol-Related
Neurological Disorder have the impaired decisionmaking and
impulse control expected of juveniles, exacerbated by their
fetal alcohol poisoning. In Ms. Brown's case, according to
the unrebutted evidence presented in State court, her
24
impairment from alcohol exposure was so great that she was
incapable of establishing the mental state necessary for
culpability for murder.
In In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), and Patterson v.
New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977), the Supreme Court clearly
established that the U.S. Constitution requires that each
element of a criminal offense must be proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. In Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307
(1979), the Supreme Court clearly held that a criminal
defendant cannot be convicted, consistent with the U.S.
Constitution, when no reasonable juror could find a defendant
guilty of the offense charged. The evidence that Ms. Brown
presented in State court showed that no reasonable jury, in
light of the clear and unrebutted scientific evidence
regarding her organic brain disorder, could have found her
guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf., In re Davis,
557 U.S. 952 (2009)(habeas relief available where "actual
innocence" of prisoner is shown)(Stevens, J., concurring);
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 311-13 (1989)(same).
Dr. Natalie Novick Brown
A clinical and forensic psychologist, Dr. Natalie Novick
Brown, testified at Cyntoia Brown's State post-conviction
hearing. (R. 14, Ex. 30; Post-Conviction Hrg. Tr. III; Pg ID
3565.) Dr. Brown had conducted a psychological examination of
Cyntoia Brown. (Id. at 3572.) Dr. Brown also examined
25
Cyntoia Brown's clinical presentation, test results, medical
records, school records, juvenile-court records, videotapes of
Cyntoia Brown being questioned by police, and records from the
Tennessee Mental Health Institute. (Id. at 3573.)
Dr. Brown testified that, in healthy teenagers, the
process of "pruning" in the brain explains "why teenagers do
kind of crazy foolish [bizarre] things sometimes." (Id. at
3574-75.) Put simply, teenagers are "not capable of executive
functioning at the level that society expects in terms of
adult behavior." (Id. at 3577.)
With regard to Cyntoia Brown's own behavior, Dr. Brown
testified that children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder
have a later "pruning" process, which starts during the mid-
teens (rather than, with girls, the usual age of approximately
12), and it progresses more slowly. (Id. at 3577.)
Dr. Brown further testified that Cyntoia Brown's
Quantitative EEG showed "severe and pervasive brain damage."
(Id. at 3582.) She testified that, in Cyntoia Brown's case,
"volition is impaired," which means that "the decision-making
process, the ability to consider all of the important
information that needs to be considered during the cognitive
process is impaired." (Id.) Dr. Brown testified specifically
that, as of the date of the offense, Cyntoia Brown's ability
to make a decision correctly and know the consequences was
impaired. (Id. at 3583.) She concluded that Cyntoia Brown
suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the
26
offense and that that defect impaired her ability to
appreciate the nature of her actions and impaired her ability
to control her behavior. (Id. at 3609.)
Dr. Brown specifically concluded that, in her opinion,
Cyntoia Brown was incapable of forming the requisite mental
state of an intentional and premeditated killing of another at
the time of the offense. (Id. at 3611.)
Dr. Richard Adler
At Ms. Brown's post-conviction hearing, Dr. Richard
Adler, a clinical and forensic psychiatrist, also testified.
(R. 14, Ex. 29; Post-Conviction Hrg. Tr. II; Pg ID 3427.) He
testified regarding Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, which
includes Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. (Id. at 3431.)
Dr. Adler examined Ms. Brown and was aware that Ms.
Brown's mother, Georgina Mitchell, had documented in a sworn
statement that during her pregnancy carrying Ms. Brown, Ms.
Mitchell "continually drank alcohol, up to a fifth or more a
day." (Id. at 3432-33; see also, R. 14, Ex. 31; Mitchell
Aff.; Pg ID 3709.) Dr. Adler testified how ethanol "most
negatively affected" the brain. (Id. at 3434.)
Dr. Adler testified how fetal alcohol exposure produces
physical abnormalities of the skeleton, heart, or other
organs. (Id. at 3438.) He testified that fetal alcohol
exposure creates "secondary disabilities" that affect
behavior, education, employment, and criminality. (Id.)
27
Dr. Adler testified, based on his examination of Ms.
Brown, that Ms. Brown has Alcohol-Related Neurodevelopmental
Disorder ("ARND"), a "severe mental disorder." (Id. at 3451,
3484.) He testified that he was able to make his diagnosis
based in part on central-nervous-system abnormalities in Ms.
Brown and a Quantitative EEG showing organic, demonstrable
brain damage constituting a "severe mental defect." (Id. at
3454, 3472-73.) Furthermore, Ms. Brown's facial features
(including a flattened philtrum, a receded chin and
cheekbones, small eye openings, lack of facial symmetry) and
hand features (clinodactyly -- misshapen curvature of the
fingers) contributed to the diagnosis, as well as Ms.
Mitchell's documented history of heavy alcohol use during her
pregnancy. (Id. at 3451-54, 3466-74.)
Dr. Adler further testified that ARND is a severe mental
disease, and that Ms. Brown has symptoms of the disease that
are particularly severe. (Id. at 3456-57, 3476.) In his
opinion, Ms. Brown had a "mental disease or defect" on the day
that she committed the act for which she was convicted. (Id.
at 3458-59.) Dr. Adler's examination showed that Ms. Brown in
2011 -- seven years after the act -- was "functioning like a
13 or 14-year-old." (Id. at 3477.) Moreover, he testified
that Ms. Brown exhibited psychosis even as early as 2000, at
age 12, which "is extremely rare in young people," and that in
2002, at age 14, she had dissociation, "which is a very
primitive mental defense mechanism." (Id. at 3480-82.)
28
Dr. Adler also testified in detail about the Quantitative
EEG evaluation that was performed on Ms. Brown, which showed
"abnormalities in what are called mid-line structures in the
middle of the brain" and confirmed his diagnosis of ARND.
(Id. at 3487, 3493.) Dr. Adler testified that the QEEG showed
abnormal functioning in the part of Ms. Brown's brain that
"controls executive functioning, higher thinking, decision-
making, social reasoning, [and] impulse control". (Id. at
3497.)
Finally, Dr. Adler testified that, based on his
examination, the Quantitative EEG, and the record established
regarding the underlying act, Ms. Brown's psychological and
psychiatric abnormalities "were likely operative . . . at the
time of the subject offense." (Id. at 3501-02.) She had not
just a "psychological disorder," but a severe, organic disease
of the brain.
Dr. Paul Connor
A clinical psychologist specializing in neuropsychology,
Dr. Paul Connor, also testified at Ms. Brown's post-conviction
hearing. (Id. at 3521.) Dr. Connor had conducted a
neuropsychology evaluation of Ms. Brown. (Id. at 3524.) The
purpose of the evaluation was to examine the functioning of
Ms. Brown's brain. (Id. at 3526.) Dr. Connor's testing
confirmed Dr. Adler's diagnosis of ARND, which also was
confirmed by the Quantitative EEG. (Id. at 3527.)
29
With regard to Ms. Brown, Dr. Connor determined that Ms.
Brown worked hard to perform the psychological evaluations
being made. (Id. at 3538.) Ms. Brown was tested at an IQ of
134. (Id. at 3539.) Based on that IQ, Dr. Connor would have
expected (in a healthy person) for Ms. Brown's psychological
functioning to be similarly high. (Id. at 3540.) Ms. Brown,
however, showed "deficits in multiple domains of functioning"
that included "visual/spatial understanding and reasoning,"
"motor coordination," "adaptive functioning," "memory," and
"executive function." (Id. at 3542-43.) Based on his entire
evaluation, Dr. Connor determined that Ms. Brown, in absolute
terms, "is within the moderately impaired range." (Id. at
3543.) Compared to her actual IQ, Ms. Brown "is actually
severely to almost profoundly impaired." (Id.) Although she
was 23 years old when he examined her, Dr. Connor concluded
that she operated, "at an age equivalent of between a 13 and
14-year old." (Id. at 3544.) Ms. Brown's neuropsychological
results were "quintessentially the pattern that [Dr. Connor]
would be expecting with fetal alcohol" (id. at 3547), and that
her tests were consistent with a diagnosis of ARND. (Id. at
3552.)
The testimony of Drs. Adler, Connor, and Brown was not
rebutted by the State of Tennessee, who called no expert
witnesses to contest the conclusion formed by Ms. Brown's
experts or to criticize the science or processes upon which
they based their conclusions.
30
Thus, the consensus of all the experts who testified as
to Cyntoia Brown's mental health was that she would have had
great difficulty controlling her behavior and appreciating the
nature of her actions under the best of circumstances. But if
there is anything about Ms. Brown's life that everyone should
agree upon, it is that she did not find herself in the best of
circumstances on the night that she met Mr. Allen. This was a
seriously mentally impaired girl, subject to the immaturity
and impulsiveness of all juveniles but to a much greater
degree, who had been abandoned by her parents and whose only
refuge was a pimp who sexually and physically abused her.
Then she met Mr. Allen, a well-armed man who directly put Ms.
Brown in fear for her life.
In light of the unrebutted testimony of the mental-health
experts who testified at Ms. Brown's post-conviction
proceeding, and the chilling circumstances that she found
herself in, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' factual
finding that no reasonable jury could have found her lacking
of the necessary mental state for first-degree murder was an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in State court. Cf. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(d)(2). Even if this Court concludes that the Supreme
Court's decision in Miller does not apply to her case, the
writ should issue, based on the clear and convincing evidence
presented in State court, cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Ms.
Brown was incapable of forming the requisite mental intent for
31
murder, as required by the Supreme Court in In re Winship, 397
U.S. 358 (1970), Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977),
and Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court denying Cyntoia
Brown's petition for writ of habeas corpus should be reversed.
At a minimum, the Court should request that the Tennessee
Supreme Court resolve the divergence of opinion between the
Tennessee Court of Appeals and the Tennessee Court of Criminal
Appeals regarding the eligibility for parole of individuals
convicted of first-degree murder after July 1, 1995.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s C. Mark Pickrell Abbe David Lowell

C. Mark Pickrell Christopher D. Man
Lead Counsel Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
5701 Old Harding Pk, No. 200 799 9th St., NW; Ste 1000
Nashville, TN 37205 Washington, DC 20001
(615) 352-9588 (202) 662-0200
Charles W. Bone J. Houston Gordon

Edward M. Yarbrough Lyle Reid
Bone McAllester Norton, PLLC 114 W. Liberty Ave.
511 Union Street, Suite 1600 Covington, TN 38019
Nashville, TN 37219 (901) 476-7100
(615) 238-6300
Paul J. Bruno Joe G. Riley, Jr.

40 Music Square East 115 Lake Street
Nashville, TN 37203 Ridgeley, TN 38080
(615) 251-9500 (731) 445-9624
Attorneys for Cyntoia Brown
32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of
Fed. R. App. P. 32. It contains 1194 lines of monospaced
type, as calculated by my word-processing software.
/s C. Mark Pickrell
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy of the foregoing brief was served by electronic
mail through the Court’s CM/ECF system on January 8, 2018, to
John H. Bledsoe, III, Office of the Attorney General,
john.bledsoe@ag.tn.gov.
/s C. Mark Pickrell
33
DESIGNATION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
Record Entry Description Pg ID
14-1 Indictment 243
1-3 Tennessee Court of Criminal 114

Appeals (Direct Appeal)
1-2 Tennessee Court of Criminal 80

Appeals (Post-Conviction)
1 Federal Habeas Petition 1
26 Order Denying Habeas Petition 5503
43 Order Denying Motion 5666

for Reconsideration
29 Notice of Appeal 5525
44 Amended Notice of Appeal 5675
34
ADDENDUM
35
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
ROGER JAMAL MYRICK v. STATE OF TENNESSEE, ET AL.
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 130470I
Claudia C. Bonnyman, Chancellor
No. M2013-02352-COA-R3-CV
Filed October 8, 2014
This appeal arises from a decision by the Davidson County Chancery Court
dismissing inmate’s petition for declaratory judgment. Inmate was convicted of
second degree murder and sought a declaratory order from the Tennessee
Department of Correction (“TDOC”) claiming he was eligible for parole and
requesting a parole hearing date. The request was denied, so inmate filed a
petition for declaratory judgment with the Davidson County Chancery Court,
arguing that he was entitled to a parole hearing and mandatory parole pursuant
to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-28-115(b)(1) and -117(b). The State filed a motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501.
The trial court granted the State’s motion, and this appeal followed. We affirm
the decision of the trial court.
Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court

Affirmed
ANDY D. BENNETT, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which

RICHARD H. DINKINS, and W. NEAL MCBRAYER, JJ., joined.
Roger Jamal Myrick, Pro Se.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Joe Whalen, Acting
Solicitor General; and Lee Pope, Assistant Attorney General; for the appellee,
State of Tennessee.
OPINION
BACKGROUND
Roger Jamal Myrick was convicted of second degree murder for an offense that
occurred on January 19, 2007, and was ordered to serve his entire sixteen-year
sentence. He is currently an inmate in the custody of the TDOC.
On February 17, 2013, Mr. Myrick asked the TDOC to find he was eligible for
parole and requested a parole hearing date. The TDOC denied his request on
36
March 11, 2013. Mr. Myrick then filed a petition for declaratory judgment with
the trial court on April 1, 2013. He sought an order from the court directing the
TDOC to grant him a parole hearing based on Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-28-
115(b)(1) and -117(b). He claimed that, pursuant to section 115(b)(1), he was
eligible for parole in 2012, and pursuant to section 117(b), he was entitled to
“mandatory parole.”
The State filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim based on Tenn.
Code Ann. § 40-35-501. Mr. Myrick filed a response and motion for summary
judgment on July 26, 2013. The trial court granted the State’s motion on
September 27, 2013. In its decision, the court explained the evolution of
Tennessee parole law and why Mr. Myrick was not eligible for parole:
Since the 1970’s when “mandatory” parole was established, there have been
two major revisions to Tennessee’s sentencing and parole laws, the first in 1982
and the second in 1989. However “the Tennessee General Assembly
purposefully did not repeal” portions of the old parole law “because it continued
to govern the sentences and release of persons who committed crimes prior to
July 1, 1982.” Hickman v. [Tenn.] Bd. of Paroles, 78 S.W.3d 285, 290 (Tenn.
Ct. App. 2001). Accordingly, the statutes to which the Petitioner cites . . . are
still valid statutes relevant to inmates convicted of committing crimes prior to
July 1, 1982.
In this case, the pleadings reveal that the Petitioner was convicted of murder in
the second degree for an offence that occurred on January 19, 2007.
Accordingly, the two statutes upon which the Petitioner relies, Tenn. Code
Ann.§§40-28-115 and -117, do not apply. Rather,“[a]llpersons who commit
crimes on or after November 1, 1989, shall be tried and sentenced under the
provisions of this chapter,” i.e., Chapter 35 of Title 40. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-
35-117(a). Accordingly, Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-101 et. seq. applies to the
Petitioner.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i)(1) mandates that “[t]here shall be no release

eligibility for a person committing an offense, on or after July 1, 1995, that is
enumerated in subdivision (i)(2). The person shall serve one hundred percent
(100%) of the sentence imposed by the court less sentence credits earned and
retained.” Enumerated in subsection (i)(2) is the offense of “Murder in the
second degree.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i)(2)(B). Accordingly, the
Petitioner, Mr. Myrick, must serve 100% of his sentence and is not entitled to a
parole eligibility date.
Mr. Myrick appeals from the trial court’s ruling and asks this Court to: reverse
the trial court’s decision and remand the case, order the trial court to assign
“‘conflict’ free counsel” and conduct an evidentiary hearing, order the Board of
37
Probation and Parole (“the Board”) to issue a parole hearing for Mr. Myrick,
and grant any other relief this Court deems just.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The trial court dismissed Mr. Myrick’s petition and granted the State’s motion
because Mr. Myrick failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for relief only challenges the
legal sufficiency of the complaint and admits the truth of the factual allegations
in the complaint. Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346
S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011). However, the motion asserts that these facts do
not establish a basis for relief. Id. A trial court’s conclusions about the adequacy
of a complaint are reviewed de novo, without a presumption of correctness.
Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457, 462-63 (Tenn. 2012).
Pleadings prepared by pro se litigants should be evaluated by less stringent

standards than pleadings prepared by lawyers. Id. at 462. However, in order to
preserve fairness between pro se litigants and their adversaries, pro se litigants
are not excused from complying with the same substantive and procedural rules
that represented parties must observe. Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901,
903 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003).
ANALYSIS
Mr. Myrick argues that he is entitled to a parole hearing and mandatory parole
pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-28-115(b)(1) and -117(b), respectively.
Section 40-28- 115(b)(1) addresses parole eligibility for certain inmates who
have served one half of their determinate sentence, while section 117(b)
addresses mandatory parole and its restrictions. Tennessee Code Annotated
section 40-28-115(b)(1) provides:
Every person sentenced to a determinate sentence and confined in a

state prison, after having served a period of time equal to one half
(1/2) of the sentence imposed by the court for the crime for which
the person was convicted, but in no event less than one (1) year,
shall likewise be subject to parole in the same manner provided for
those sentenced to an indeterminate sentence.
Tennessee Code Annotated 40-28-117(b)(2) states:
(b) Every prisoner who has never been granted a parole of any type
by the board on a particular sentence of imprisonment shall be
granted a mandatory parole by the board subject to the following
restrictions:
38
...
(2) Prisoners serving a determinate or indeterminate

sentence with a maximum term of more than ten (10) years
as fixed by the court, shall be paroled by the board six (6)
months prior to the completion of the maximum term of
sentence less credit for good and honor time and incentive
time;
The State relies on Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501, which addresses parole
eligibility for anyone who committed certain crimes after July 1, 1995. The
statute provides, in part:
(i)(1) There shall be no release eligibility for a person committing

an offense, on or after July 1, 1995, that is enumerated in
subdivision (i)(2). The person shall serve one hundred percent
(100%) of the sentence imposed by the court less sentence credits
earned and retained. However, no sentence reduction credits
authorized by § 41-21-236 or any other provision of law, shall
operate to reduce the sentence imposed by the court by more than
fifteen percent (15%).
...
(2) The offenses to which subdivision (i)(1) applies are: ...
(B) Murder in the second degree;
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i)(1) and (2)(B).
Mandatory parole was originally established in 1974. Hickman v. Tenn. Bd. of

Paroles, 78 S.W.3d 285, 290 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). The Tennessee Criminal
Sentencing Reform Act of 1982 (“the Act”) applied to anyone who committed a
crime on or after July 1, 1982. Id. The Act did not contain any mandatory
parole provision, so people who committed crimes after July 1, 1982 were not
entitled to mandatory parole. Id. However, the original mandatory parole
statute was not repealed because it still applied to sentences and release of
anyone who committed crimes before July 1, 1982. Id.
In 1989, Tennessee’s sentencing and parole laws were rewritten again. Id. The
1989 Act applies to “[a]ll persons who commit crimes on or after November 1,
1989.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-117(a). It also states that “[f]or all persons
who committed crimes prior to July 1, 1982, prior law shall apply and remain in
39
full force and effect in every respect, including, but not limited to, sentencing,
parole and probation.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-117(c). Most importantly, the
1989 Act provides that there will be no release eligibility for anyone who
commits second degree murder after July 1, 1995, and they will be forced to
serve one hundred percent of the sentence imposed by the court less sentence
credits earned and retained. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i)(1), (2)(b).
Mr. Myrick incorrectly relies on Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-28-115(b)(1) and -

117(b) to argue he is entitled to parole. Because both of those provisions apply
to crimes committed before July 1, 1982, those statutes do not provide the relief
Mr. Myrick is seeking. The 1989 Act applies to Mr. Myrick because he was
convicted of second degree murder for an offense that took place after
November 1, 1989 and July 1, 1995. As a result, we agree with the trial court
that Mr. Myrick is not eligible for parole and must serve his entire sentence.
Mr. Myrick also argues that, because inmates convicted of second degree
murder have been paroled before, the Equal Protection Clause demands that he
receive his own hearing. He bases this argument entirely on a document from
the Board’s Research, Policy and Planning Division that includes information
on how many inmates convicted of second degree murder were paroled between
July 2007 and June 2013. However, this document is not part of the record.
Documents not in the record are not properly before this court. UT Med. Grp.,
Inc. v. Vogt, 235 S.W.3d 110, 122 (Tenn. 2007). Simply attaching a document
to an appellate brief does not place it in the record on appeal. Id. Only matters
set forth in the record may be considered. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(c) (“The
Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Court of Criminal Appeals may consider
those facts established by the evidence . . . and set forth in the record . . . .”).
Because this document is not in the record, this Court cannot consider the
document, and Mr. Myrick’s Equal Protection argument fails.
Finally, Mr. Myrick requests that this Court order the trial court to assign him
conflict free counsel and conduct an evidentiary hearing. His claims have failed,
so he is not entitled to a hearing. As to the request for an attorney, Mr.
Myrick’s brief makes no argument that he is entitled to one, so that argument is
waived. Tenn. R. App. P. 27(a)(7) (requiring that an appellant present reasons
why appellate relief is required with citations to authorities).
40
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of appeal are assessed against
the Appellant, Roger Jamal Myrick, and execution may issue, if necessary.
ANDY D. BENNETT, JUDGE
41

Cyntoia Brown Appeal in Sixth Circuit Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cyntoia Brown Appeal in Sixth Circuit Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cyntoia Brown Appeal in Sixth Circuit Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 16-6738 Document: 24 Filed: 01/08/2018 Page: 1

CASE NO. 16-6738

CAROLYN JORDAN, Warden,

On Appeal from the United States District

BRIEF OF APPELLANT CYNTOIA BROWN

Abbe David Lowell Charles W. Bone

J. Houston Gordon Paul J. Bruno

Joe G. Riley, Jr. C. Mark Pickrell

Attorneys for Cyntoia Brown

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................ii

STATEMENT REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT .......................1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................2

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................4

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................5

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................12

I. EIGHTH AMENDMENT ..............................15

A. Ms. Brown's sentence of mandatory

B. Even if Ms. Brown is eligible for

II. ACTUAL INNOCENCE ..............................24

In light of the clear evidence presented

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ...............................33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ..................................33

DESIGNATION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS .......................34

ADDENDUM (Myrick v. Tennessee) ..........................35

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) .....................................14

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-4-108 ..............................17

Tenn. Code Ann. § 16-5-108 ..............................17

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(c) ..........................16

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(h) ..........................16

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i) ......................passim

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 23 ....................................20

Brown v. Tennessee, 2014 WL 5780718

Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2011) ...........21

Davis, In re, 557 U.S. 952 (2009) .......................26

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) ...................12

Hill v. Snyder, 821 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2016) ............17

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) ....12, 13, 25, 32

McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1997) ...14

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012)...............passim

Myrick v. Tennessee, 2014 WL 5089347

Perry v. Tennessee, 2004 WL 115381

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) ...................12

Sheets v. Moore, 97 F.3d 165 (6th Cir. 1996) ............21

Starks v. Easterling, No. 14-6230

Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) ....................26

Tennessee v. Brown, 2009 WL 1038275

Tennessee v. Polochak, 2015 WL 226566

Vaughn v. Tennessee, 202 S.W.3d 106 (Tenn. 2006) ........18

White v. McGinnis, 131 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 1997) .........14

Winship, In re, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) .........12, 13, 25, 32

A.C. Spaulding, et al.,

STATEMENT REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT

Cyntoia Brown respectfully requests oral argument. The

two legal issues certified for appeal by the district court

are substantial and complicated.

The first issue involves important questions of law

involving the application of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460

(2012), to juveniles in Tennessee who are tried and sentenced

to life imprisonment for first-degree murder. The