State of Tennessee v. Mack Jeffery Thompson, M2015-01601-CCA-R3-CD

In 2006 Mack Jeffery Thompson pled guilty to second-degree murder (Class A felony) under a written plea agreement calling for a Range II sentence of 40 years at 100% confinement; felony murder and theft charges were dismissed.
The judgment of conviction reflected the 40-year Range II, 100% sentence but incorrectly checked a box designating Thompson as a “repeat violent offender.”
In 2015 Thompson filed a pro se Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, attaching the plea agreement and judgment; he argued the plea/judgment were inconsistent and that the State’s three‑strikes notice was erroneous or defective.
The trial court summarily denied relief, finding the sentence matched the plea, the 40‑year term was within the Range II statutory range, Thompson qualified as a violent offender (but not under subsection (a)(1)), and any defective notice caused no prejudice.
On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed denial of the Rule 36.1 motion, held the sentence was not illegal, but found the repeat‑violent‑offender notation on the judgment was a clerical error requiring correction under Rule 36 and remanded for that limited correction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thompson’s 40‑year, 100% sentence is illegal because plea and judgment differ	Thompson: plea/agreement and judgment are inconsistent; sentence illegal	State: sentence matches plea; within Range II statutory range	Held: sentence lawful; within Range II and authorized by statute
Whether the judgment’s “repeat violent offender” designation rendered sentence void	Thompson: designation void on face; would require life without parole; he didn’t meet criteria	State: designation was a clerical error; he was not sentenced as a repeat violent offender	Held: designation was clerical error; remand for correction under Rule 36 (clerical)
Whether defective notice of potential repeat‑violent sentencing (three‑strikes notice) made sentence illegal or involuntary	Thompson: State’s notice was insufficient, hindering plea decision	State: any notice defect affects voluntariness of plea (voidable), not legality of sentence	Held: notice deficiency, if any, goes to voluntariness (voidable) not to illegality; not grounds under Rule 36.1

Hickman v. State, 153 S.W.3d 16 (Tenn. 2004) (describes historic collateral‑attack remedies)
State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (construed Rule 36.1 and limits on correcting expired illegal sentences)
State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines a “colorable claim” under Rule 36.1 and examples of illegal sentences)