Jason Steven Molthan v. State of Tennessee
M2024-00529-CCA-R3-PC
Tenn. Crim. App.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Jason Steven Molthan was convicted by a Williamson County jury of misdemeanor stalking and harassment stemming from conduct between October 2018 and January 2019.
- He was sentenced to consecutive terms of eleven months and twenty-nine days for each count.
- Molthan represented himself at trial, and appellate counsel did not provide a trial transcript on direct appeal.
- On direct appeal, his sentence was affirmed, with issues regarding the consecutive sentences deemed waived due to inadequate briefing.
- After beginning his sentence, Molthan filed a pro se motion to correct his sentence under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1, arguing the consecutive sentences were illegal since he allegedly lacked prior convictions.
- The trial court summarily denied his motion without a hearing or counsel; Molthan appealed, challenging the dismissal and the finding of “extensive criminal activity.”
Issues
| Issue | Molthan's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of motion without counsel/hearing | Court erred by denying 36.1 motion summarily; hearing required | Motion did not state colorable claim; hearing not required | Summary denial proper; no colorable claim |
| Consecutive sentencing based on prior record | Court wrongly found "extensive criminal activity;" no priors | Consecutive sentences valid under statute & record | No illegal sentence; sentencing proper |
| Legality of consecutive sentences | Consecutive sentences are illegal under 36.1 | Statutory scheme permits such sentencing | Not illegal; claim is appealable error |
| Ineffective appellate counsel | Counsel failed to preserve appellate rights | Not issue for 36.1 relief | Not addressed in 36.1; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (Defines categories of sentencing errors and standards for Rule 36.1 motions)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010) (Examines types of sentencing errors pertinent to post-conviction and 36.1 relief)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (Explains when a sentencing error is fatal and renders sentence void)