State of Tennessee v. Carl Hall, W2016-00915-CCA-R3-CD

Carl Hall pled guilty in Jan 2012 to multiple offenses, including attempted second-degree murder, aggravated robbery, especially aggravated burglary, employing a firearm during a dangerous felony, and aggravated assault; effective sentence 31 years.
On Feb 23, 2016 Hall filed a Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing double jeopardy, ineffective assistance/representation regarding a firearm offense, and that he was convicted of an offense he did not commit.
The trial court summarily denied the Rule 36.1 motion as not stating a colorable claim. Hall appealed and filed a motion for reconsideration raising additional claims that sentencing length and partial consecutive sentences were imposed without addressing enhancement/mitigating or consecutive factors.
On appeal Hall also argued the indictment and judgment conflated "employment" and "possession" of a firearm, claiming the six-year sentence exceeded what should apply if he were convicted only of the lesser possession offense.
The State argued none of Hall’s claims invoked Rule 36.1 relief because they did not allege an illegal (void) sentence; many were challenges to sentencing methodology or convictions, which Rule 36.1 does not remedy.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding Hall’s claims failed to state a colorable Rule 36.1 claim; the firearm entry in the judgment was a clerical error and the sentence was authorized as entered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 36.1 motion states colorable claim for illegal sentence	Hall: convictions and sentence (esp. firearm count) violate double jeopardy and are illegal; sentence exceeded statutory authorization	State: claims attack correctness of sentencing or convictions, not voidness; Rule 36.1 unavailable	Denied — not colorable under Rule 36.1
Whether trial court reduced indicted firearm charge to lesser possession offense (affecting sentence)	Hall: judgment/plaintiff forms show "possession" not "employment," so six-year mandatory minimum for employment is excessive	State: judgment used operative term "employment" and said convicted "as charged"; clerical error in forms	Denied — clerical error; conviction for employment stands
Whether sentencing length/enhancement factors were improperly handled	Hall: trial court failed to address enhancement/mitigating factors when setting length	State: such errors are sentencing methodology, not illegal sentence under Rule 36.1	Denied — not cognizable in Rule 36.1
Whether partial consecutive sentences violated consecutive-sentencing requirements	Hall: trial court imposed partial consecutive sentences without addressing applicable factors	State: challenges to consecutive sentencing methodology are not Rule 36.1 claims	Denied — not cognizable in Rule 36.1

Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287 (Tenn. Crim. App.) (defines illegal sentence as synonymous with void sentence)
Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn.) (overruled Cox on other grounds)
State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn.) (few sentencing errors render sentence illegal; methodology challenges not voiding sentence)