State of Tennessee v. Mario Ramirez Rodriguez
M2020-01526-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 5, 2021Background:
- In 2007 Rodriguez was indicted on multiple sexual-offense counts and pleaded guilty to two counts of rape of a child for an effective 20-year sentence; remaining counts were dismissed.
- In 2012 Rodriguez filed habeas relief arguing Count 2 was incorrectly marked as a repeat violent offender; the court and this Court found that marking to be a clerical error and directed/corrected the judgment to reflect “Child Rapist 100%.”
- In August 2020 Rodriguez moved under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1, claiming his sentence was illegal because (1) the ability to earn sentence-reduction credits was a bargained-for plea term, (2) he was not informed of lifetime community supervision, and (3) the corrected judgment for Count 2 omitted pretrial jail credits shown on the original form.
- The trial court denied relief on the first two claims after reviewing the guilty-plea transcript, concluding those claims were contradicted by the record and would amount to a collateral attack on plea voluntariness not cognizable under Rule 36.1; the court agreed the omission of pretrial credits was an error but did not enter a corrected judgment, noting TDOC time sheets appeared to have applied the credits.
- On appeal this Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on the credit-bargain and supervision claims, held those challenges were not properly remedied under Rule 36.1, but concluded the omission of pretrial jail credits in the Count 2 judgment was a clerical error and remanded for entry of a corrected judgment form reflecting those credits.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rodriguez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rodriguez stated a colorable Rule 36.1 claim that his plea bargain included the ability to earn sentence-reduction credits | Plea transcript shows no bargain for credits; claim contradicts record and is a plea-voluntariness attack not appropriate under Rule 36.1 | He alleges credits were a bargained-for element of his plea, making the sentence illegal if withheld | Court: Claim contradicted by plea transcript; not a proper Rule 36.1 remedy — denied |
| Whether failing to inform Rodriguez of lifetime community supervision rendered the sentence illegal | Transcript shows he was informed; challenge attacks plea knowingness and is not remediable under Rule 36.1 | He asserts he was not told about lifetime community supervision, making the sentence illegal | Court: Transcript belies the claim; plea-voluntariness issue — denied |
| Whether the corrected Count 2 judgment must reflect pretrial jail credits omitted from the corrected form | TDOC TOMIS/time sheets indicate credits were applied; trial court therefore declined to re-enter a corrected form | The omission is a clerical error; the corrected judgment should include the pretrial jail credits | Court: Omission is clerical error; remanded to trial court to enter a corrected judgment for Count 2 reflecting pretrial credits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines "illegal sentence" under Rule 36.1 and explains colorable-claim standard)
- Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (Rule 36.1 de novo review principles and standards)