State of Tennessee v. Jarvis D. Cohen, W2016-01320-CCA-R3-CD

Jarvis D. Cohen pled guilty in 1999 to multiple offenses including felony murder (life), attempted first-degree murder, especially aggravated robbery, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and possession with intent to sell; all sentences were ordered to run concurrently, producing an effective life sentence.
Cohen later moved under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 (Aug. 24, 2015) seeking correction of illegal sentences, arguing some offenses were committed while he was on bond and thus statutorily required to be served consecutively.
The State acknowledged that eight indictments involved crimes committed while Cohen was on bond and that those sentences should have been consecutive, but contended the concurrent terms were not shown to be a material component of the plea agreement.
The trial court denied the Rule 36.1 motion, reasoning that habeas corpus limitations (Tenn. Code Ann. §29-21-101(b)) barred relief for plea-bargained concurrent sentences and also noting that some alleged illegal sentences had expired.
The Department of Correction later filed an affidavit showing all underlying concurrent sentences expired by September 29, 2016; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed denial, concluding expired sentences are not correctable under Rule 36.1 and, alternatively, concurrent sentencing was a material, beneficial part of Cohen’s plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether concurrent sentences imposed where statute required consecutive sentences are "illegal" under Rule 36.1	State: such concurrent sentences are illegal but relief is limited by plea-waiver principles	Cohen: concurrent sentencing was illegal and must be corrected to consecutive terms	Court: Concurrent sentences of that type are illegal, but relief is unavailable because sentences expired and plea bargain protections apply
Whether Rule 36.1 authorizes correction of expired illegal sentences	State: Rule 36.1 does not permit correction of expired sentences	Cohen: relief may be proper despite passage of time	Court: Cannot correct expired sentences under Rule 36.1 (citing Brown)
Whether the illegal aspect (concurrent sentencing) was a material component of Cohen’s plea	State: defendant failed to show it was not material	Cohen: testified concurrent sentencing was a material inducement to plead	Court: Concurrent sentencing benefitted Cohen and was a material component; under amended Rule 36.1 relief is denied
Whether the trial court properly relied on habeas-corpus statute to deny Rule 36.1 relief	State: habeas limitations are relevant; trial court applied them	Cohen: Rule 36.1 is separate from habeas corpus procedures	Court: Reliance on habeas statute was improper for Rule 36.1, but outcome correct for other reasons (expired sentences & material benefit)

State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines "illegal sentence" under Rule 36.1 and recognizes concurrent sentences required by statute to be consecutive can be illegal)
State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 does not authorize correction of expired illegal sentences)