State of Tennessee v. Christopher Hatcher
W2016-01389-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Christopher Hatcher was indicted for first-degree premeditated murder, first-degree felony murder, and two counts of attempted first-degree murder; convicted of felony murder, second-degree murder (merged), attempted first-degree murder, and reckless endangerment. Sentenced to life for felony murder plus concurrent terms for other convictions. Convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal and post-conviction review.
- In 2016 Hatcher filed a pro se motion under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 to correct an illegal sentence, arguing he was indicted/convicted of attempted felony murder (which Kimbrough holds is not a crime) and thus his 20-year sentence and concurrent life sentence were void for lack of jurisdiction.
- The State responded that Hatcher was never indicted or convicted of attempted felony murder; the trial court denied the Rule 36.1 motion.
- Hatcher appealed, contending the jury convicted him of an offense for which he was not indicted and that he never consented to an amendment; he did not raise this issue below.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals found the indictment/conviction attack waived for failure to raise at trial and concluded Hatcher’s motion was an attack on his convictions (not a cognizable Rule 36.1 claim) because he did not argue his sentence, independent of conviction, violated statutory authority.
- The court affirmed the trial court under Tenn. Crim. App. R. 20, finding no precedential value and no basis for relief under Rule 36.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hatcher’s sentence is illegal under Rule 36.1 because he was indicted/convicted of attempted felony murder (nonexistent offense) | Hatcher: Indictment/conviction for attempted felony murder (invalid offense per Kimbrough) rendered sentence void and trial court lacked jurisdiction | State: Hatcher was not indicted or convicted of attempted felony murder; convictions/sentences valid | Denied — claim is an attack on convictions, waived where not raised at trial; no colorable Rule 36.1 illegal-sentence claim because sentence itself wasn’t shown to be outside statutory authority |
| Whether failure to raise indictment-amendment/indictment-conformity issue below precludes appellate review | Hatcher: contends indictment error invalidates conviction/sentence | State: procedural default; issue not raised below | Waived — issue first raised on appeal is procedurally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kimbrough, 924 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. 1996) (holding attempted felony murder is not a distinct crime in Tennessee)
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (interpreting “illegal sentence” under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 and distinguishing fatal sentencing errors)
- State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 permits correction of an unexpired illegal sentence at any time)
- Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (issues raised first on appeal are waived)
- State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (procedural-default principles for appellate review)