State of Tennessee v. Marty v. Bell
W2015-02525-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- In 1994 Marty V. Bell pled guilty to aggravated rape (Class A felony) and received a 25-year sentence as a Range I offender; the trial court found him to be a “multiple rapist.”
- The presentence report and record reflect a prior rape conviction from 1985 and a later rape occurring after July 1, 1992, triggering statutory multiple-rapist consequences.
- Multiple-rapist classification required serving the full sentence at 100% without sentence-reduction credits under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-523.
- In 2015 Bell filed a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the court failed to make a factual finding of the prior rape conviction and that his 25-year sentence was disproportionate compared to other sexual-offense sentences.
- The trial court denied the motion without a hearing; Bell appealed and this Court reviewed whether the sentence was illegal under Rule 36.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of 25-year plea sentence | Sentence is authorized by statute and plea; not illegal | Trial court erred by imposing maximum and misclassifying him as a multiple rapist | Affirmed: plea-bargained 25-year sentence is statutorily authorized and not illegal |
| Multiple-rapist classification and 100% service | Statute mandates classification and full service when prior rape exists and later offense post-7/1/1992 | Judgment form misrepresents him; denies right to credits; argues ex post facto problem | Affirmed: classification is mandatory, lawful, and not ex post facto because provisions were effective before his conviction |
| Use of Rule 36.1 to seek sentence reduction credits | Rule 36.1 applies only to illegal sentences, not discretionary credit disputes | Seeks reduction/credit relief under Rule 36.1 | Denied: Rule 36.1 cannot be used to seek sentence-reduction credits when sentence is lawful |
| New issues raised on appeal | N/A | Raises multiple other sentencing claims for first time on appeal | Waived: issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines “colorable claim” under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (distinguishes illegal sentences as those unavailable under Sentencing Act; multiple-rapist classification is mandatory)
- Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776 (Tenn. 2007) (plea-bargained sentence is legal if it does not exceed statutory maximum; plea waives certain classification/release-eligibility challenges)
- Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. 1997) (supporting principle that guilty pleas waive some sentencing irregularity claims)
- Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (issues not raised at trial are waived on appeal)
- State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (same waiver/forfeiture principle for appellate review)