State of Tennessee v. Curtis Coleman, E2016-00678-CCA-R3-CD

Petitioner Curtis Coleman was arrested on December 19, 2007, and released on bond the next day, with further arrests in February and April 2008 while on bond.
May 21, 2008, the Sullivan County Grand Jury indicted Coleman in S54905 on multiple offenses; case S55343 charged felony failure to appear.
August 26, 2008, additional indictments (S55479 and S55596) charged offenses alleged to have occurred while on bond.
January 19, 2009, Coleman pled guilty to all offenses with an effective 25-year sentence; counts within each indictment were to be served concurrently, with the four indictments to be served consecutively.
On December 22, 2015, Coleman filed a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence; the trial court dismissed it January 5, 2016, and Coleman amended February 25, 2016 arguing innocence on bail offenses and improper concurrent sentencing; the court held no colorable claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentences were illegal for failing to order consecutive sentencing under 40-20-111(b).	Coleman argues sentencing should have been consecutive as required by 40-20-111(b).	State contends the judgments complied with 40-20-111(b) and plea agreement, with consecutive terms between indictments.	No colorable claim; sentences properly mandated and arranged.
Whether Coleman’s actual-innocence claim states a colorable Rule 36.1 claim.	Coleman asserts actual innocence of offenses while on bail supports relief.	State argues actual innocence is an appellate, not a Rule 36.1, relief-ground and not colorable.	No colorable claim; actual innocence not a basis for Rule 36.1 relief.

State v. Alder, 71 S.W.3d 299 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (consecutive sentencing mandatory when on bail)
State v. Greer, 697 S.W.2d 603 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1985) (no discretion to run concurrently when on bail for related offenses)
State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (colorable claim definition for Rule 36.1)