Tenn. R. Juv. P. 209
Advisory Commission Comments.
Pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and with the consent of the court, a child may enter a "best interests" guilty plea. This is not a no contest plea. When the child enters an Alford plea, he or she is pleading guilty because it is in his or her best interests, but he or she does not necessarily agree to the factual basis of the plea as set out by the state's attorney. A guilty plea entered pursuant to Alford has all the legal effects of a guilty plea, except that the child cannot be charged with perjury or false statement if he or she later disputes the facts that serve as a basis for the guilty plea or denies his or her guilt of the offense.
The 2016 amendment to this rule adds a provision to allow the child to enter a no contest (nolo contendere) plea. Latin for "I do not wish to contend," Black's Law Dictionary defines a nolo contendere plea as follows: "A plea by which the defendant does not contest or admit guilt." Black's Law Dictionary1269 (9th ed. 2009). See also Tenn. R. Crim. Proc. 11(a)(1) and (2). The no contest plea requires the court's approval and is similar in legal effect to an Alford plea.
The court is required to inquire about any prior discussions the child may have had regarding potential dispositions. The court should properly make itself aware of such interactions and "bargains," and of their effect on the child's willingness to plead guilty or no contest, before it makes a decision whether to accept any such plea. The court should also ascertain, through this inquiry, with whom any such discussions took place, and whether the child's attorney or parent, guardian or custodian was present.
The 2016 amendment adds the provision that if the child pleads guilty or no contest, the child waives the right to appeal the adjudication to the circuit court, or to have a hearing before the judge on the issue of adjudication if the matter is being heard by a magistrate.
The court may at any time prior to the beginning of a dispositional hearing permit a plea of guilty or no contest to be withdrawn, and if an adjudication has been entered thereon, set aside such adjudication and allow another plea to be substituted for the plea of guilty or nolo contendere. In the subsequent adjudicatory hearing, the court may not consider the plea which was withdrawn as an admission. Evidence of a guilty or no contest plea, later withdrawn, or of statements made in connection therewith, would not be admissible in any proceeding against the child.
The 2016 amendment adds that if the plea includes an agreement as to disposition, the child waives the right to appeal the disposition to the circuit court or to have a hearing before the judge on the issue of disposition, if the matter is being heard by a magistrate.
Finally, the 2016 amendment allows the court to accept a plea of guilty or no contest on a judicial diversion, pursuant to T.C.A. § 37-1-129(a), and defer further proceedings while placing a child on probation. In doing so, the plea shall not be entered as a judgment, and the child shall not found delinquent.