State of Tennessee v. Brandon D. Washington
W2016-00413-CCA-R3-CD
Tenn. Crim. App.Jun 9, 2017Background
- Brandon D. Washington pleaded guilty in two Shelby County indictments to multiple drug and assault-related offenses and received consecutive effective sentences totaling six years.
- On September 21, 2011, his six-year sentence was suspended and he was placed on six years of probation.
- Washington violated probation; a revocation warrant was issued (appears to be June 9, 2015) and the court revoked probation (appears July 17, 2015), ordering him to serve the six-year sentence.
- On January 26, 2016, he filed a pro se Rule 36.1 motion seeking correction of an illegal sentence, primarily arguing he was not given sufficient pretrial jail credits and that time on probation should count toward his sentence.
- The trial court denied the motion as failing to state a colorable claim; Washington appealed.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, concluding Rule 36.1 relief was not available for the claims presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to award pretrial jail credits makes sentence illegal | Washington: lack of pretrial credits renders his sentence illegal | State: failure to award credits does not alter sentence legality; challenge belongs on direct appeal | Denied — not a colorable Rule 36.1 claim (pretrial credit error is not an illegal sentence) |
| Whether time on probation counts toward sentence after revocation | Washington: time on probation should reduce/expire his sentence | State: probation time counts only if probation term is successfully completed | Denied — probation time does not count when probation is revoked before term completion |
| Whether constitutional claims or bond issues render sentence illegal | Washington: raises constitutional violations and bond entitlement as making sentence illegal | State: constitutional errors make judgment voidable, not void; not cognizable under Rule 36.1 | Denied — constitutional/related claims do not state colorable Rule 36.1 claims |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim via Rule 36.1 | Washington: counsel was ineffective impacting sentence legality | State: such claims do not make sentence illegal and are improper under Rule 36.1 | Denied — ineffective assistance is not a Rule 36.1 colorable claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines “colorable claim” under Rule 36.1 and explains constitutional errors render convictions voidable, not void)
- State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (failure to award pretrial jail credit does not render a sentence illegal for Rule 36.1 purposes)
- State v. Hunter, 1 S.W.3d 643 (Tenn. 1999) (time served on probation does not count toward sentence unless probation term is successfully completed)