State of Tennessee v. George Prince Watkins, W2016-00171-CCA-R3-CD

George Prince Watkins pleaded guilty to burglary (1986/1989 proceedings) and received a probationary sentence; his probation was later revoked.
While on bond for the probation violation, Watkins committed four additional offenses and pled guilty to those counts.
The trial court ordered the new sentences to run concurrently with the original sentence rather than consecutively.
Watkins filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion claiming the concurrent orders were illegal because statutes and rules require consecutive sentences when an offense is committed while released on bail.
The trial court initially summarily dismissed the Rule 36.1 motion; this court found Watkins stated a colorable claim and remanded for further proceedings.
After remand, the Tennessee Supreme Court decided State v. Brown holding Rule 36.1 does not permit correction of expired illegal sentences; the trial court dismissed Watkins’s motion as the sentences had expired, and this dismissal was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 36.1 permits correction of an illegal sentence that has expired	State: Rule 36.1 relief is not available for expired sentences; the movant’s time to challenge has passed	Watkins: An illegal sentence is void ab initio and never expires; concurrent service was illegal so sentence remains correctable	Held: Rule 36.1 does not authorize correction of expired illegal sentences; summary dismissal affirmed (per State v. Brown)
Whether Watkins stated a colorable claim under Rule 36.1	State trial court initially conceded Watkins stated a colorable claim on appeal	Watkins: His pleading alleged statutory requirement for consecutive service, which if true entitles relief	Held: Although the claim alleged an illegal sentence, it was moot under Rule 36.1 because the sentence had expired
Whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing without appointment of counsel/hearing	Watkins: Should have been appointed counsel and given a hearing after stating a colorable claim	State: Procedural remedies (post-conviction, habeas) available earlier; delay waived relief	Held: No relief because Brown bars Rule 36.1 review of expired sentences, so summary dismissal proper

State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 does not authorize correction of expired illegal sentences)
Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (background on pre-Rule 36.1 remedies like habeas corpus and post-conviction)