State of Tennessee v. Michael v. Morris
M2017-01229-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 13, 2017Background
- In 2006 Michael V. Morris was convicted of aggravated robbery (Aug. 2004) and sentenced as a Range III career offender to 30 years at 60%.
- Morris’s conviction and later post-conviction relief denial were affirmed on appeal; he previously filed multiple unsuccessful habeas petitions challenging career-offender status.
- In Dec. 2016 Morris filed a Tennessee Rule of Crim. P. 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the trial court improperly relied on his pre-1982 Texas convictions to classify him as a career offender.
- The motion lacked detailed information about the Texas convictions (dates, exact offenses, or the full criminal-history basis for the career-offender finding).
- The trial court summarily dismissed the Rule 36.1 motion for failure to state a colorable claim; Morris appealed.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed by memorandum opinion under Rule 20, concluding no colorable claim of an illegal sentence was pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 36.1 motion stated a colorable claim that Morris’s sentence is illegal because pre-1982 Texas convictions were misclassified | Morris: trial court erred using pre-1982 Texas convictions as Class C felonies to reach career-offender status | State: sentence is statutorily authorized; offender-classification disputes do not render a sentence illegal under Rule 36.1 | Held: Motion failed to allege a colorable illegal-sentence claim; summary dismissal proper |
| Whether challenge to Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-108 (career-offender statute) was preserved | Morris raised constitutional challenge on appeal | State: issue not raised in the Rule 36.1 motion and therefore waived | Held: Constitutional challenge waived for failure to raise below |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines “illegal sentence” for Rule 36.1 and explains colorable-claim standard)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (distinguishes clerical, appealable, and fatal sentencing errors)
- Cauthern v. State, 145 S.W.3d 571 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004) (issues raised first on appeal are waived)
- State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (preservation and waiver principles for appellate issues)