State of Tennessee v. Adrian R. Brown
2015 Tenn. LEXIS 933
| Tenn. | 2015Background
- In 1995 Adrian Brown pleaded guilty to three Class C and one Class B cocaine-sale offenses; plea agreement called for three-year concurrent sentences on the Class C counts and an eight-year concurrent term on the Class B count.
- The trial court orally accepted the plea agreement, but the written judgments incorrectly recorded six-year terms for each Class C conviction.
- Brown filed a pro se Rule 36.1 motion in 2013 seeking correction of allegedly illegal sentences, alleging: no pretrial jail credit awarded, sentences exceeded agreed/ presumptive terms, and Rule 11 violations.
- The State argued (and the trial court found) the motions were without merit because Brown’s sentences had already expired; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed as moot.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal to decide whether Rule 36.1 permits correction of expired illegal sentences and whether failure to award pretrial jail credit states a colorable Rule 36.1 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 allows correction of expired illegal sentences | Rule 36.1 permits correction “at any time,” so expired illegal sentences may be corrected | Rule 36.1 should not be read to expand habeas relief to expired sentences; any correction of expired sentences raises finality and constitutional concerns | Rule 36.1 does not authorize correction of expired illegal sentences; relief under Rule 36.1 is limited to unexpired sentences |
| Whether failure to award statutorily-required pretrial jail credit states a colorable Rule 36.1 claim | Failure to award credits violates Tenn. Code and thus renders sentence illegal | Although a statute requires credit, failure to award it does not render the underlying sentence illegal for Rule 36.1 purposes | Failure to award pretrial jail credit is not an "illegal sentence" under Rule 36.1 and is insufficient to plead a colorable claim |
| Whether the trial court’s recording of six years (vs. agreed three years) on judgments is correctable | The written judgments conflict with the plea transcript and contain a clerical error | The discrepancy is clerical and should be corrected under Rule 36 | The six-year entries are clerical errors; they may be corrected under Rule 36 despite sentence expiration; remand to correct judgments |
| Whether Rule 36.1 expanded State’s ability to seek correction of illegal sentences generally | (implicit) Rule 36.1 authorizes both sides to seek correction, possibly at any time | Rule 36.1 provides a mechanism but does not expand the substantive scope of relief beyond prior habeas principles | Rule 36.1 creates a mechanism for both parties but does not expand scope to include expired sentences; it mirrors prior definitions of "illegal sentence" |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. 1978) (trial judge may correct illegal sentence at any time)
- Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2005) (habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for challenging illegal sentences)
- Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16 (Tenn. 2004) (habeas relief unavailable after sentence expiration unless judgment itself restrains liberty)
- Benson v. State, 153 S.W.3d 27 (Tenn. 2004) (habeas relief denied where sentences expired before filing)
- Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (illegal-sentence challenges are moot if all challenged sentences expired)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010) (enumeration of types of illegal sentences)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (categorization of sentencing errors; only fatal errors render sentence illegal)
- Stubbs v. State, 393 S.W.2d 150 (Tenn. 1965) (appealable error raised for failure to award pretrial credit)