State of Tennessee v. Carlos Richard Morris, W2017-00129-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Carlos Richard Morris pleaded guilty (Oct. 25, 2006, Madison County) to two counts of possession of ≥ .5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of ≥ 1/2 ounce of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and failure to obey a stop sign; effective sentence = eight years as a Range I offender.
Trial court merged the two cocaine-with-intent-to-sell convictions and ordered the Madison County eight-year sentence to run concurrently with any remaining Henderson County sentences; judgment noted Henderson County probation was revoked.
Morris previously pleaded guilty in Henderson County (Feb. 24, 2000) to two counts of possession with intent to sell (offenses in 1998 and 1999) and was sentenced to concurrent eight-year Community Corrections terms; probation violations and revocations occurred in 2015.
Morris filed a Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 motion (Mar. 21, 2016) claiming: (1) his Henderson County sentences were illegal because one offense occurred while he was on bail for another, so those sentences should be consecutive not concurrent; (2) the Madison County court illegally ordered concurrency with Henderson County sentence; and (3) he was denied proper pretrial jail credit.
The State responded that Henderson County sentences had expired (so Rule 36.1 relief unavailable), the timing did not support Morris’s bail claim, and any concurrency favored Morris; the trial court summarily dismissed the motion and denied reconsideration.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the record was inadequate (key judgments and proof not in the trial record) to establish a colorable claim under Rule 36.1, so summary dismissal was proper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Morris stated a colorable claim that his Henderson County sentences were illegal because one offense occurred while on bail for another, requiring consecutive sentences	Morris: one Henderson offense occurred while on bail for another, so concurrent sentencing was illegal	State: record lacks proof; Henderson sentences entered in 2000 and had expired; Morris provided no trial-record judgments showing bail or timing	Court: No — record incomplete; appellant’s appellate appendix not part of record; no colorable claim shown, dismissal affirmed
Whether the Madison County court illegally ordered concurrency with Henderson County sentence	Morris: Madison County sentence illegally runs concurrently with Henderson County sentence	State: concurrency benefited Morris; not a basis for Rule 36.1 relief if error favors defendant	Court: No relief — concurrency benefits Morris and Rule 36.1 disfavors relief for errors benefiting defendant; dismissal proper
Whether Morris was denied proper pretrial jail credit	Morris: he was not properly awarded jail credit	State: no proof in record to support claim	Court: No — the record lacked the required judgments/documentation to establish a colorable claim; dismissal affirmed
Whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the Rule 36.1 motion without appointing counsel or holding a hearing	Morris: summary dismissal improper without appointed counsel/hearing if colorable claim alleged	State: no colorable claim shown; procedural protections not triggered	Court: No — because motion did not state a colorable claim on the incomplete record, appointment/hearing not required; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (defines "colorable claim" for Rule 36.1 purposes)
State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (same context for "colorable claim")
State v. Matthews, 805 S.W.2d 776 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (documents attached only to briefs are not part of the appellate record)
State v. Bennett, 798 S.W.2d 783 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (appellate court precluded from considering issues when record is incomplete)