State of Tennessee v. Jackie Phillip Lester-Dissenting
M2016-00700-CCA-R3-CD
Tenn. Crim. App.Jan 17, 2017Background
- Defendant previously had an 18-month sentence partially revoked and was ordered to serve that portion in the Lawrence County Jail rather than in TDOC custody.
- There was no record that the county jail had a TDOC contract or that TDOC ever took physical custody of the Defendant; local officials administered credits and custody.
- At a later probation revocation the Defendant was transferred to TDOC; dispute arose over whether pre-transfer good-behavior and work credits earned in the county jail should be awarded.
- Trial court declined to award those post-judgment credits on revocation, believing it lacked authority; TDOC likewise could not award credits contrary to the trial court’s order.
- The dissenting judge concluded these are unique procedural/jurisdictional circumstances (trial court retained jurisdiction while inmate was never transferred to TDOC) and would have awarded all earned credits prior to TDOC incarceration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must or may award post-judgment jail good-behavior/work credits on revocation | Trial court retained jurisdiction and should declare/award credits earned while defendant remained in local custody | Court (majority) treated proper avenue as administrative challenge to TDOC under the APA; trial court lacked authority | Dissent: trial court could and should award credits because defendant never transferred to TDOC and trial court retained jurisdiction |
| Whether judgment must reflect post-conviction/post-judgment credits on face of judgment | Plaintiff: trial court should note such credits on revocation order so TDOC can compute release | Defendant/majority: statute requires noting pre-sentencing credits but not post-judgment credits on conviction judgment; administrative remedy exists | Court (dissent) relied on precedent allowing trial court to enter orders declaring credits in unique circumstances |
| Whether TDOC could lawfully house Defendant in county jail and thereby control credits | Plaintiff: TDOC never took custody; county jail housed him without TDOC contract, so trial court retained control of credits | Defendant: TDOC authority exists to contract with local jails and compute credits | Finding: No evidence of TDOC contract or transfer; thus local custody persisted and trial court retained jurisdiction |
| Proper remedy for inmate challenging credit calculation | Plaintiff: trial court order correcting credits is appropriate here given unique facts | Defendant: inmate should use APA process to challenge TDOC calculations | Holding (dissent): APA inadequate because TDOC cannot override a trial-court determination; trial court had authority to declare credits here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henry, 946 S.W.2d 833 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (generally directing sentence-credit disputes to administrative process)
- Yates v. Parker, 371 S.W.3d 152 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012) (statute requires trial court to note pre-sentencing jail credits but not post-judgment credits on conviction judgment)
- State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (distinguishing clerical, appealable, and fatal sentencing errors)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (analysis of error types affecting sentencing challenges)
- Bonner v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 84 S.W.3d 576 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (TDOC must calculate sentences per trial-court judgments and statutes)
- State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. 1978) (TDOC may not alter trial-court judgments)