Full Opinion

11/12/2026 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 27, 2026 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. REGIS MIGUEL GREEN Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No. 129360 Emily F. Abbott, Judge ___________________________________ No. E2025-01883-CCA-R3-CD ___________________________________ The defendant, Regis Miguel Green, pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and was sentenced to ten years in the Tennessee Department of Correction. As a condition of his plea, the defendant reserved the right to appeal a certified question of law pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2) of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress based on lack of reasonable suspicion or probable cause for the stop of his vehicle. Upon review, we conclude that the record is insufficient to address the merits of the defendant’s certified question, and therefore, we presume the trial court’s ruling was correct and affirm the judgment below. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed J. ROSS DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which TOM GREENHOLTZ and STACY L. STREET, JJ., joined. Russell T. Greene, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Regis Miguel Green. Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrew R. Runions, Assistant Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; and Gregory C. Eshbaugh, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Facts and Procedural History In December 2024, the defendant was indicted for possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to sell or deliver, and possession of drug paraphernalia, arising out of the stop and search of his vehicle on February 29, 2024. The underlying facts of the case giving rise to the charges were as follows:1 [O]n February 29, 2024 at approximately 22:48 hours Officer Stainback observed a black 2014 Nissan Pathfinder that failed to come to a complete stop before entering the roadway of Walker Springs Road when it was leaving 206 Walker Springs Road, the GoodStop. Officer Stainback initiated a stop on that vehicle on the [I]40 West and [I]40 East exit ramp. Upon approach Deputy Stainback found [the defendant] to be the driver of the vehicle. He was unable to provide a valid driver’s license or registration or proof of insurance. [Deputy Stainback] was able to smell the odor of marijuana coming from inside the vehicle. He . . . the [d]efendant was able to provide a Bill of Sale stating he just purchased the vehicle. A record’s check conducted on the vehicle came back with . . . the temporary tag on the vehicle came back not on file. A check[] found that the [d]efendant was on active Tennessee State probation. Deputy Stainback asked if there was anything illegal in the vehicle, to which [the defendant] said “no”. Later Deputy Stainback was able to obtain consent to search the vehicle. Search was conducted which did find approximately twenty-one grams (21g) of a green-leafy substance that was consistent with marijuana, twenty-two (22) portion baggies, two (2) digital scales, clear plastic cup with marijuana residue. At that time, . . . the [d]efendant was placed into restraints. The search conducted on [the defendant] found an additional fifty-nine (59) pills, which the [d]efendant stated was MDMA, also known as Ecstasy located in his front-left pocket. He was taken into custody. Subsequent TBI testing of that material, . . . found that rather than being MDMA it was in fact methamphetamine. These events did all occur in Knox County. The State submits that based on the amount of methamphetamine that was possessed, by the [d]efendant along with the paraphernalia, including the scales, that that was possessed with the intent to sell or deliver. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the stop of his vehicle based on his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The defendant argued that Deputy Stainback did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a traffic stop of his vehicle. The defendant claimed that his not stopping before driving over the sidewalk in front of the Good Stop did not constitute a violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 55-8-150 because there was no pedestrian or vehicular traffic in the area at the time. The defendant also insinuated that there were pretextual 1 As recited by the State at the guilty plea hearing on November 12, 2025. -2- reasons for the traffic stop, asserting, “If Deputy Stainback had reasonable suspicion, aka violation of TCA 55-8-150, he could have easily pulled him over well before” he did. Although neither a transcript from a hearing on the motion to suppress nor a ruling on the motion is in the record before us, the trial court apparently denied the motion. On November 12, 2025, the defendant entered a plea agreement under which he pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver in exchange for a sentence of ten years, dismissal of the other charges, and reservation of a certified question. The trial court accepted the plea and entered a judgment form for the possession of methamphetamine conviction (Count 1) reflecting the terms of the plea agreement.2 In detailing the certified question, the judgment form provided: The defendant pleads guilty but explicitly reserves the following certified question of law pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2)(A): Whether the court erred in ruling that Deputy Stainback had reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the defendant after the defendant exited the parking lot and crossed the sidewalk at the Good Stop Convenience Store without stopping in violation of T.C.A. 55-8-150, when there were no pedestrians or other vehicles present requiring the defendant to yield the right of way and Deputy Stainback did not observe any other violations supporting reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the defendant. The defendant, the State, and the Honorable Judge Emily Abbott consent to this reservation and agree that it is dispositive of the case. The defendant timely appealed. Analysis The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the traffic stop of his vehicle was initiated without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. The State responds, first, that the appeal should be dismissed because the statement of the certified question fails “to provide the reasons relied upon by [the defendant] in the trial court to advance his motion to suppress the evidence recovered during his traffic stop and the reasons passed upon by the trial court in denying the motion.” Alternatively, the State responds that the trial court properly determined Deputy Stainback’s stop of the defendant’s vehicle was reasonable. As we will address, we conclude the record is insufficient to address the merits of the defendant’s certified 2 Judgment forms for Counts 2 and 3 are not in the record. -3- question, and therefore, we presume the trial court’s ruling was correct and affirm the judgment below. A guilty plea “constitutes an admission of all facts necessary to convict and waives all non-jurisdictional defects and constitutional irregularities which may have existed prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540, 542 (Tenn. 1999). However, Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b)(2) specifies the limited scenarios when a defendant in a criminal case has a right of appeal following a guilty plea: [I]f 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)(A) or (D) 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. . . . Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b)(2). Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 37(b)(2) provides that a defendant can appeal a certified question following a guilty plea when: (A) the defendant entered into a plea agreement under Rule 11(c) but explicitly reserved – with the consent of the [S]tate and of the court – the right to appeal a certified question of law that is dispositive of the case, and the following requirements are met: (i) the judgment of conviction or order reserving the certified question that is filed before the notice of appeal is filed contains a statement of the certified question of law that the defendant reserved for appellate review; (ii) the question of law as stated in the judgment or order reserving the certified question identified clearly the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved; (iii) the judgment or order reserving the certified question reflects that the certified question was expressly reserved with the consent of the [S]tate and the trial court; and -4- (iv) the judgment or order reserving the certified question reflects that the defendant, the [S]tate, and the trial court are of the opinion that the certified question is dispositive of the case[.] Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). The defendant bears the burden of satisfying the requirements of Rule 37(b)(2). State v. Springer, 406 S.W.3d 526, 531 (Tenn. 2013); State v. Pendergrass, 937 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Tenn. 1996). In State v. Preston, our supreme court instructed: [T]he question of law must be stated so as to clearly identify the scope and the limits of the legal issue reserved. For example, where questions of law involve the validity of searches and the admissibility of statements and confessions, etc., the reasons relied upon by defendant in the trial court at the suppression hearing must be identified in the statement of the certified question of law and review by the appellate courts will be limited to those passed upon by the trial judge and stated in the certified question, absent a constitutional requirement otherwise. 759 S.W.2d 647, 650 (Tenn. 1988). However, our supreme court recently addressed how some of the language in Preston has led to the dismissal of numerous appeals by this Court declining to look beyond the “four-corners . . . [of] the certified-question statement” when evaluating “the scope and limits of a certified-question appeal.” State v. Burrell, --- S.W.3d ---, 2026 WL 2329459, at *5-*6 (Tenn. 2026). Taking the opportunity to clarify and revise Tennessee’s certified-question procedure, our supreme court held that when determining the scope and limits of appellate review, a reviewing court must consider the certified-question statement in conjunction with the record. Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(ii) is satisfied when the certified-question statement, read together with the record, contains enough detail to allow the appellate court to identify the scope and limits of the issue. Id. at *6 (emphasis added). The court explicitly overruled Preston “to the extent it require[d] that the reasons ‘relied upon by defendant in the trial court’ and ‘passed upon by the trial judge’ be included in the certified-question statement.” Id. In light of our supreme court’s holding in Burrell, the State’s argument for dismissal—that the certified question fails “to provide the reasons relied upon by [the defendant] in the trial court to advance his motion to suppress the evidence recovered during his traffic stop and the reasons passed upon by the trial court in denying the -5- motion”—is to no avail. As instructed in Burrell, this Court is to consider the certified- question statement in conjunction with the record to determine the scope and limits of appellate review. However, the defendant failed to include the transcript of the hearing on the motion to suppress or the trial court’s ruling on his motion. Thus, unlike the situation in Burrell, where our supreme court noted that “[a]ny details omitted from the question – including the reasons underlying the [d]efendant’s suppression motion and the trial court’s denial of that motion – are readily discernable from the record,” id. at *7, we do not have that information at our disposal. Without the transcript from the suppression hearing or especially the trial court’s ruling on the motion, we do not have the information before us to address the merits of the defendant’s certified question even if we presume the certified question “identified clearly the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved[.]” The question becomes what this Court’s next step is, given recent Tennessee Supreme Court precedent. In State v. Bishop, another certified question case issued the same day as Burrell, our supreme court addressed the requirement that a certified question be “dispositive of the case.” --- S.W.3d ----, 2026 WL 2329478, at *1 (Tenn. 2026). The court determined that the appropriate action for a reviewing court in the event it determines the certified question is not dispositive is to vacate the judgment of the trial court and give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his or her guilty plea. Id. at *9. In State v. Holley, the court indicated displeasure with this Court’s dismissal of an appeal due to the defendant’s failure to include a transcript of the guilty plea hearing in the record on appeal. --- S.W.3d ---, 2026 WL 2149085, at *7-*10 (Tenn. 2026). However, the issue in Holley involved the denial of probation, and much of the discussion is not clearly applicable outside the sentencing context. This case presents a situation where the defendant failed to provide a sufficient record to address the merits of the issue, which is distinguishable from a situation where the defendant pled guilty and reserved a certified question later determined not to be dispositive or where the defendant’s issues could be addressed under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness without a missing transcript. With Burrell, Bishop, Holley, and prior precedent in mind, we determine that our supreme court’s instruction in Preston remains—that the defendant bears the burden of ensuring the record on appeal “contains all of the proceedings below that bear upon . . . the merits of the question certified.” Preston, 759 S.W.2d at 650. An appellant has “a duty to prepare a record that conveys a fair, accurate, and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issues forming the basis of the appeal.” State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tenn. 1993) (citation omitted); see Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b) (“[T]he appellant shall have prepared a transcript of such part of the evidence or proceedings as is necessary to convey a fair, accurate and complete account of what transpired with respect to those issues that are the bases of appeal”). “In the absence of an adequate record on appeal, this [C]ourt must presume that the trial court’s rulings were supported by sufficient evidence.” State v. -6- Brown, 373 S.W.3d 565, 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011) (quoting State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554, 559 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991)); see also Holley, 2026 WL 2149085, at *9 (listing the reviewing court’s options aside from dismissal when a missing transcript was necessary for review and stating “[p]erhaps the simplest is . . . presuming that the missing . . . transcript supports the trial court’s ruling”). Conclusion Based on the foregoing authorities and reasoning, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. S/ J. ROSS DYER __ J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE -7-