State of Tennessee v. James Ronald Rollins
E2016-00186-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- In 1990 Rollins pleaded guilty to especially aggravated robbery; in 1991 the trial court sentenced him as a Range III career offender to 60 years, with release eligibility after 60% served.
- The State had filed a notice under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(a) listing prior convictions and intended to seek career-offender status under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-108(a)(1).
- Rollins previously litigated the notice/classification issue on direct appeal and in a post-conviction petition; those appeals were unsuccessful.
- In 2015 Rollins filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging: defective enhancement notice, improper prior-conviction counting for career-offender status, a Blakely/Gomez sentencing violation (judge-found enhancement facts), and that his guilty plea was induced despite insufficient proof of serious bodily injury.
- The trial court summarily denied the Rule 36.1 motion; Rollins appealed and the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Rollins' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defective notice under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-202(a) made the sentence illegal | Notice was insufficient, so enhancement and resulting sentence are illegal | Notice and prior proceedings gave adequate notice; sentence authorized by statute | Denied — even if notice error assumed, offender-classification errors that leave sentence within Sentencing Act do not make it illegal |
| Whether trial court miscounted priors for career-offender classification under § 40-35-108(a)(1) | Some prior convictions were mischaracterized, so career-offender status was improper | Classification error does not render the sentence unauthorized if sentence remains statutorily permitted | Denied — offender-classification errors alone do not create an illegal sentence when sentence is authorized by statute |
| Whether sentence violated Blakely/Gomez by relying on judge-found enhancement facts | Sentence was enhanced on facts not found by a jury, violating Blakely/Gomez | A Blakely-type error does not make a judgment void or an "illegal sentence" under Rule 36.1 | Denied — Blakely/Gomez claim does not render sentence illegal for Rule 36.1 purposes |
| Whether Rule 36.1 is the proper vehicle to challenge an allegedly coerced guilty plea | Plea was coerced/induced by improper advice; sentence therefore illegal | Rule 36.1 is not the correct procedure to challenge a coerced plea; such claims belong in post-conviction proceedings | Denied — Rule 36.1 is not the correct remedy for a coerced-plea claim; summary denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (holding that facts increasing statutory maximum sentence must be found by a jury or admitted)
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 ‘‘colorable claim’’ standard and examples of illegal sentences)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (offender-classification error generally does not render a sentence illegal if within Sentencing Act)
- State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007) (addressing judicial factfinding and sentencing issues)