State of Tennessee v. Matthew Allen Thompson, E2016-01562-CCA-R3-CD

In 1983 Matthew Allen Thompson was convicted of second-degree burglary and as a habitual offender; a mandatory life sentence was imposed and affirmed on direct appeal.
In March 2016 Thompson filed a pro se motion titled "motion to correct an illegal sentence" (citing Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36) arguing the State failed to present the three priors required for the habitual-offender sentencing.
The trial court summarily denied the motion as attacking the sufficiency of the conviction and not alleging a colorable illegal-sentence claim; the order lacked a certificate of service.
Thompson filed a late notice of appeal; he asserted he did not receive the trial-court order until after the appeal deadline and attached correspondence showing a July 5, 2016 postmark from the clerk.
The Court of Criminal Appeals waived the untimely notice of appeal because the record contained no proof the State served Thompson with the denial order within the appeal period.
On the merits the court reviewed whether Thompson’s filing stated a colorable claim under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 (and noted Rule 36 pertains to clerical corrections) and concluded he alleged only challenges to conviction sufficiency, not an illegal sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to waive untimely appeal	State: procedural default unless appellant shows excuse	Thompson: did not receive denial order until July; appeals period effectively tolled	Waived — lack of record proof of service justified waiver of notice-of-appeal timing
Whether motion alleges illegal sentence under Rule 36.1	State: motion attacks conviction sufficiency, not sentence illegality	Thompson: life sentence illegal because State failed to prove three priors supporting habitual-offender status	Denied — motion did not present a colorable Rule 36.1 claim; it challenged conviction sufficiency rather than an illegal sentence
Whether Rule 36 (clerical correction) applies	State: not applicable where no clerical error alleged	Thompson relied on Rule 36 language in his filing	Denied — Rule 36 inapplicable because no clerical mistake in the judgment was alleged
Whether hearing/appointment of counsel required under 36.1	Thompson implicitly sought relief under 36.1	State: no colorable claim so no entitlement to hearing or appointment	Denied — because no colorable claim, trial court properly denied without appointment/hearing

Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (standard for de novo review of colorable illegal-sentence claims under Rule 36.1)
State v. Rockwell, 280 S.W.3d 212 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (factors for waiving untimely notice of appeal)
Wooden v. State, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (definition and scarcity of errors that render a sentence illegal)
Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (distinction of clerical errors correctable under Rule 36)