Illegal Sentence, Motion to Correct (Rule 36.1)
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
State v. Reid, 620 S.W.3d 685, 688–89 (Tenn. 2021).
This Court has previously defined a “colorable claim” for relief under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 as “a claim that, if taken as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the moving party, would entitle the moving party to relief under Rule 36.1.” State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 593 (Tenn. 2015). The determination *689 of whether a Rule 36.1 motion states a colorable claim for relief is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Id. at 589.
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
Parks v. State, No. E2022-01592-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 14, 2023).
The determination whether a Rule 36.1 “motion states a colorable claim for correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 is a question of law, to which de novo review applies.” Id. at 589 (citing Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007)).
State v. Anderson, No. W2022-01758-CCA-R3-CD, p. 2 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 13, 2023).
In this case, the issue is whether the trial court properly denied the Defendant’s motion to correct a clerical error in his judgments pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. “A trial court’s ruling on a Rule 36 motion is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Hardin v. State, No. E2021-01244-CCA-R3-PC, 2022 WL 3355020, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 15, 2022), no perm. app. filed.
State v. Watson, No. E2022-01321-CCA-R3-CD, p. 10-11 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 12, 2023).
Whether a sentence is illegal is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. June Curtis Loudermilk, No. W2015-00222-CCA- R3-CD, 2016 WL 81292, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 6, 2016) (citing State v. Dusty Ross Binkley, No. M2014-01173-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 2148950, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 7, 2015) (stating that review of a sentence pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 is de novo with no presumption of correctness) (citing Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007) (reviewing whether a sentence is illegal for purposes of habeas corpus relief de novo))).
State v. Davis, No. W2022-01404-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 9, 2023).
Whether a movant’s Rule 36.1 motion states a colorable claim is a question of law that we review de novo. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d at 589.
State v. Griffin, No. M2022-01443-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 25, 2023).
Whether a Rule 36.1 motion states a colorable claim for correction of an illegal sentence is a question of law. State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 589 (Tenn. 2015). Likewise, whether to grant relief upon review of a petition for habeas corpus is a question of law. Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751, 755 (Tenn. 2010). Our review is therefore de novo with no presumption of correctness given to the conclusions of the trial court. Id.
State v. McDougle, No. W2022-01103-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 17, 2023).
Whether a motion states a colorable claim for correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 is a question of law calling for de novo review. State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 589 (Tenn. 2015) (citing Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007)). Rule 36.1 provides that the petitioner “may, at any time, seek the correction of an illegal sentence by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the trial court in which the judgment of conviction was entered.” A sentence is illegal if it is not authorized by the applicable statutes or directly contravenes an applicable statute. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 (a)(2). If the motion states a colorable claim, the trial court shall appoint counsel if the petitioner is indigent and not already represented by counsel and hold a hearing on the motion, unless the parties waive the hearing. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 (b)(3). A “‘colorable claim’ means a claim that, if taken as true and viewed in a light most favorable to the moving party, would entitle the moving party to relief under Rule 36.1.” Wooden, 478 S.W.3d at 593. “The movant must attach to the motion a copy of each judgment order at issue and may attach other relevant documents.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 (a)(1).
State v. Marshall, No. W2022-01068-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 10, 2023).
Whether a motion states a colorable claim for correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal. Id. at 589.
State v. Nichols, No. M2022-00802-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. April 10, 2023).
We review a trial court’s decision on a Rule 36 motion for an abuse of discretion. Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State, No. W2013-01088-CCA-R3-CO, 2014 WL 902450, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 7, 2014).
State v. Wright, No. W2021-01270-CCA-R3-CD, p. 2 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 9, 2022).
Whether a motion states a colorable claim is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 588 (Tenn. 2015).
State v. Bobo, No. W2021-00811-CCA-R3-CD, p. 2-3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 29, 2022).
As noted by our supreme court, “mistakes in sentencing are inevitable, but few sentencing errors render sentencing illegal.” Id. at 595 (citing State v. Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d 445, 448-49 (Tenn. 2011). Only fatal errors result in an illegal sentence and “are so profound as to render the sentence illegal and void.” Id. (citing Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d at 452). Fatal errors include “sentences imposed pursuant to an inapplicable statutory scheme, sentences designating release eligibility dates where early release is statutorily prohibited, sentences that are ordered to be served concurrently where statutorily required to be served consecutively, and sentences not authorized by any statute for the offenses.” Id. (citing Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751, 759 (Tenn. 2011)). Errors which are merely appealable, however, do not render a sentence illegal and include “those errors for which the Sentencing Act specifically provides a right of direct appeal.” Id.; see Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d at 449. Appealable errors are “claims akin to . . . challenge[s] to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction” and “involve attacks on the correctness of the methodology by which a trial court imposed sentence.” Wooden, 478 S.W.3d at 595; see Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d at 450-52.
State of Tennessee v. Settle, No. W2021-00328-CCA-R3-CD, p. 3 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 31, 2022).
This court has stated thata colorable claim “is a claim . . .that, if taken as true”, in the light most favorable to the [petitioner], would entitle [the petitioner] to relief[.]”‘ State v. David A. Brimmer, No. 82014-01393-CCA-R3-CD, 2014 WL 2017 Sg,-at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 18,2014) (citing and quoting State v. Mark Edward Greene, No. M2013-027|}-CCA-R3-CD,2014 WL 3530960,at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 16,2014)); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 28 $ 2(H).
Editor’s Note: Settle did not include any further statement on the review conducted by the appellate courts.
Jackson v. State of Tennessee, No. M2021-00302-CCA-R3-PC, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 27, 2022).
Whether a motion “states a colorable claim for correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 is a question of law, to which de novo review applies.” Id. at 589.
Collier v. State of Tennessee, No. M2021-00209-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 8, 2022).
The determination of whether a Rule 36.1 motion states a colorable claim is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Id. at 589 (citing Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007)). The determination of whether a sentence is illegal is also a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. State v. Dusty Ross Binkley, No. M2014-01173-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 2148950, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 7, 2015) (citing Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 255).
State of Tennessee v. Evans, No. M2021-00963-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. March 7, 2022).
A trial court may summarily dismiss a Rule 36.1 motion if it does not state a colorable claim for relief. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(b)(2). A “‘colorable claim’ means a claim that, if taken in a light most favorable to the moving party, would entitle the moving party to relief under Rule 36.1.” [State v.] Wooden, 478 S.W.3d [585] at 593. Whether the defendant has presented a colorable claim for relief under Rule 36.1 is a question of law, which this Court reviews de novo without a presumption of correctness. Id. at 589.
