State of Tennessee v. Marcus Deangelo Lee
W2016-02208-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Marcus DeAngelo Lee pleaded guilty in 1997 to felony escape; he had previously received a three-year sentence in 1995 for drug- and firearm-related offenses.
- The 1997 escape sentence was one year as a Range I offender, ordered to run consecutively to the 1995 sentence.
- Lee asserted a plea promise included 103 days of jail (pretrial) credit; an amended judgment dated September 3, 1998, reflected 103 days credit and continued to state the escape sentence was consecutive.
- Seventeen years later Lee filed a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion, claiming the award of 103 days credit effectively made the escape sentence run concurrently with the 1995 sentence in violation of the statute.
- The trial court summarily dismissed the Rule 36.1 motion; Lee appealed. The State argued the sentences at issue are expired and therefore not subject to Rule 36.1 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Lee's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by summarily dismissing Lee’s Rule 36.1 motion challenging jail credit | Awarding 103 days credit effectively made the escape sentence concurrent with the 1995 sentence, violating statute | The challenged sentences are expired; Rule 36.1 cannot correct expired sentences | Affirmed: dismissal proper because sentences are expired and Rule 36.1 does not authorize correction of expired sentences |
| Whether awarding pretrial jail credit can render a sentence "illegal" under Rule 36.1 | The 103 days credit altered sentencing relationships, creating an illegal concurrent result | Pretrial jail credit affects incarceration length but does not change the legality of the sentence; credits do not make an otherwise valid sentence illegal | Court held awarding credit does not create a colorable Rule 36.1 claim once sentence is expired |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 permits correction of unexpired illegal sentences; does not authorize correction of expired sentences)
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines "illegal sentence" categories and limits Rule 36.1 to fatal errors that render a sentence illegal)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010) (examples of illegal sentences include those ordered concurrent where statute requires consecutive service)