State of Tennessee v. Jesus Baltazar Diaz Ramos, AKA Enrique Ruano Diaz
M2016-02187-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Jesus Baltazar Diaz Ramos was convicted by a jury of aggravated rape of a three-year-old child for an offense alleged in December 2006.
- He received a 40-year sentence as a persistent offender and was ordered to serve 100% of the sentence. This Court previously affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
- In August 2016 Defendant filed a pro se Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 motion seeking correction of an "illegal sentence," alleging sentencing/classification errors and asserting defects in the indictment and arrest paperwork (noting an arrest affidavit date one day different from the indictment date).
- The trial court denied the Rule 36.1 motion without a hearing, concluding the only potentially cognizable claim related to offender classification but that the sentence was imposed according to statute as a Range III offender and required 100% service.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the motion stated a colorable claim and that the court erred in dismissing without a hearing. The State opposed relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 36.1 motion stated a colorable claim requiring a hearing | The State: motion raised non-fatal or non-cognizable claims under Rule 36.1 and could be decided without a hearing | Ramos: his motion alleged an illegal sentence and other defects that warranted relief and a hearing | Court: motion did not present a fatal illegal-sentence claim; denial without hearing was proper |
| Whether sentencing as a "persistent offender" rendered the sentence illegal | State: sentence was imposed under the applicable statutory scheme (Range III) and authorized | Ramos: classification as a persistent offender made the sentence illegal | Court: offender-classification/within-range sentencing claims are appealable errors, not fatal for Rule 36.1; no illegal sentence shown |
| Whether discrepancy between arrest-affidavit date and indictment date deprived court of jurisdiction | State: such defects attack the conviction, not the sentence, and are not cognizable in Rule 36.1 | Ramos: date discrepancy undermines jurisdiction and thus the legality of the sentence | Court: this is a collateral attack on conviction/jurisdiction, not a proper Rule 36.1 claim |
| Whether challenges to evidence and indictment are cognizable under Rule 36.1 | State: evidentiary and indictment defects challenge conviction correctness, not sentence legality | Ramos: trial errors and indictment defects bear on sentence legality | Court: such claims were not raised in the trial court and, in any event, challenge the conviction and are not remedial under Rule 36.1 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramos, 331 S.W.3d 408 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010) (affirming defendant's underlying conviction)
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defining "illegal sentence" for Rule 36.1 as coterminous with habeas-corpus context and distinguishing clerical, appealable, and fatal errors)
- Fayne v. Vincent, 301 S.W.3d 162 (Tenn. 2009) (issues raised for the first time on appeal are generally waived)