State of Tennessee v. Earl Vantrease, M2016-01200-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Earl Vantrease was convicted in 2003 of aggravated robbery (Class B felony) and sentenced as a Range II offender to 16 years at 35% service.
He did not appeal his conviction or sentence; prior habeas petitions were unsuccessful.
In May 2016 Vantrease filed a motion under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 seeking correction of an "illegal and void" sentence, alleging improper enhancement, Apprendi violations, enhancement based on prosecutor request, and denial of allocution.
The trial court summarily dismissed the Rule 36.1 motion for failure to state a colorable claim, incorrectly characterizing it as a pretrial jail-credit dispute.
Vantrease appealed the dismissal; the State conceded the trial court misstated the basis but argued the motion still failed to state a colorable claim.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the sentence was statutorily authorized and the alleged errors were appealable (non-fatal) or not cognizable under Rule 36.1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentence is "illegal" under Rule 36.1	State: dismissal proper if no colorable claim	Vantrease: sentence illegal due to improper enhancement, Apprendi violation, enhancement on prosecutor request, and denial of allocution	Court: No — sentence was statutorily authorized; allegations raise appealable errors, not fatal/illegal defects
Whether alleged enhancement violated Apprendi	State: enhancement claims do not make sentence illegal	Vantrease: prior arrest/enhancement violated Apprendi	Court: Failed to allege a colorable Rule 36.1 claim; procedural/appealable error, not an illegal sentence
Whether denial of allocution renders sentence illegal	State: allocution claims are for direct appeal	Vantrease: denied right to allocution at sentencing	Court: Even if true, denial of allocution is not a Rule 36.1 colorable claim; should be raised on direct appeal
Whether summary dismissal was improper given trial court's characterization	State: trial court mischaracterized but result correct	Vantrease: court erred in dismissing because he did not seek jail credits	Court: Trial court erred in characterization but correctly dismissed for failure to state a colorable claim

State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines "colorable claim" under Rule 36.1 and distinguishes fatal illegal sentences from appealable sentencing errors)
State v. Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (explains distinction between fatal sentencing defects and appealable errors)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (statutory factfinding used to increase sentence must be submitted to jury under Sixth Amendment)