State of Tennessee v. Corey Jermaine Hart, W2016-00565-CCA-R3-CD

In 2005, Corey Jermaine Hart pled guilty in two cases to controlled substance possession with intent to sell/deliver (merged), possession of drug paraphernalia, aggravated assault, and reckless endangerment; effective sentence was 10 years concurrent.
An amended judgment (June 30, 2005) credited Hart with pretrial jail service for the aggravated assault conviction.
On August 6, 2015, Hart filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his aggravated assault and reckless endangerment sentences were illegal because he committed those offenses while on bail and because pretrial credit was not reflected on the judgments.
The trial court appointed counsel, continued the hearing by agreement, and ultimately denied the Rule 36.1 motion on February 19, 2016, holding Hart’s sentences had expired on August 14, 2013, and Brown barred relief for expired sentences under Rule 36.1.
Hart appealed the denial; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, finding no colorable claim under Rule 36.1 and noting Hart consented to the continuance he later challenged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 36.1 permits correction of an expired sentence	State: Rule 36.1 does not authorize relief for expired sentences	Hart: At filing, law was unsettled and some courts might have granted relief; thus his motion could be colorable	The court held Rule 36.1 does not apply to expired sentences and Brown controls; Hart’s motion failed to state a colorable claim
Whether trial court erred in dismissing the motion without a hearing	State: No error because the motion failed to state a colorable claim	Hart: Denial was premature given alleged unsettled law and requested relief	Held the trial court properly dismissed the motion under Rule 36.1(b) because the sentence had expired
Whether delay/continuance prejudiced Hart	State: Hart consented to continuance; no prejudice	Hart: Implied challenge to the delay between filing and ruling	Court found Hart consented to continuance and cannot now complain about delay
Whether judgments omitted pretrial credit rendered sentence illegal	State: Even if clerical credit issue existed, sentences were expired and Rule 36.1 unavailable	Hart: Claimed judgments did not reflect pretrial jail credit, making sentences illegal	Court did not reach substantive credit correction because Rule 36.1 relief was barred for expired sentences

State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 does not authorize correction of expired illegal sentences)
State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines a "colorable claim" under Rule 36.1 and when a hearing is required)