Harold Holloway, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
E2020-01361-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 20, 2021Background
- In 2003 a Hamilton County jury convicted Harold Holloway Jr. of second-degree murder and several attempted offenses related to a 2000 death; the trial court imposed an effective 40-year sentence.
- This court previously affirmed Holloway’s convictions and sentence on direct appeal and later affirmed the summary dismissal of an earlier habeas petition.
- On June 3, 2020 Holloway filed a pro se pleading styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus or, alternatively, a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence.
- Holloway argued his sentences were illegal because the trial court applied the wrong offender classification and release-eligibility percentage; he contended the offenses arose from a single criminal transgression and, with two prior felonies, he should be a Range I standard offender with 30% release eligibility.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the pleading for failure to present cognizable grounds under habeas corpus or Rule 36.1.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that an allegedly erroneous offender classification does not render a sentence illegal and Holloway failed to state a colorable Rule 36.1 or habeas claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an incorrect offender classification or release-eligibility percentage makes a sentence "illegal" under habeas corpus | Holloway: trial court used wrong offender classification and should have applied 30% release eligibility because offenses were a single transgression and he had two priors | State: an erroneous offender classification does not create a legally void sentence; relief not available via habeas or Rule 36.1 | Court: No — erroneous offender classification does not produce an illegal sentence; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Holloway pleaded a colorable claim under Rule 36.1 or habeas corpus | Holloway: alleged facts (single transgression, two priors) establish illegal sentence | State: allegations do not, even if true, establish a void sentence or entitlement to immediate release | Court: No — petition did not state a colorable claim for relief under Rule 36.1 or habeas; summary dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reid, 620 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2021) (illegal sentences and available remedies via habeas or Rule 36.1)
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 colorable-claim pleading standard)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (erroneous offender classification does not make sentence illegal)
- Faulkner v. State, 226 S.W.3d 358 (Tenn. 2007) (de novo review of habeas corpus determinations)
- Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (Rule 36.1 legal standard for motion to correct illegal sentence)