State of Tennessee v. Montreal Lyons, W2016-00929-CCA-R3-CD

Montreal Lyons was convicted of multiple offenses arising from events on May 14, 2002, and received an effective 44-year sentence (merged aggravated robbery counts and an especially aggravated kidnapping count).
The trial court imposed sentences under the 2005 amendments to Tennessee's sentencing act; the parties and trial court later acknowledged the sentencing procedure did not comply with State v. Gomez.
Lyons did not raise the sentencing-act version issue on direct appeal or in prior post-conviction proceedings.
In December 2015 Lyons filed a pro se Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence; counsel was appointed and a hearing was held.
The trial court dismissed the Rule 36.1 motion, finding the sentence was authorized by statute and within the proper range based on Lyons’s prior criminal history, and therefore not illegal.
Lyons appealed; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the error was appealable/voidable under the 2005-sentencing-waiver framework—not an illegal (void) sentence under Rule 36.1.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lyons)	Held
Whether sentencing under the 2005 amendments without an ex post facto waiver renders the sentence illegal	The sentence is valid and authorized; dismissal was proper because Lyons failed to state a colorable illegal-sentence claim	Lyons contends his sentence is illegal because the court applied the 2005 amendments to offenses committed in 2002 without an ex post facto waiver	Held: Error is voidable/appealable, not an "illegal" (void) sentence under Rule 36.1—trial court dismissal affirmed
Whether Rule 36.1 permits relief for sentences imposed under an inapplicable statutory scheme	The State argues Rule 36.1 requires a colorable illegal-sentence claim; Lyons did not meet that standard	Lyons argues applying the 2005 scheme without waiver made his sentence unauthorized and thus illegal	Held: A sentence imposed under 2005 amendments without waiver is voidable (appealable), not automatically illegal for Rule 36.1 relief

Gomez v. State, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007) (addressing sentencing-step requirements under the 2005 amendments)
Wooden v. State, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines when a Rule 36.1 motion states a "colorable" illegal-sentence claim)
Brown v. State, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (discusses dismissal standards for Rule 36.1 motions)
Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (categorizes sentencing errors: clerical, appealable, and fatal)
Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010) (explains when a court lacks statutory authority and a sentence is void)
Nelson v. State, 275 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (explains applicability of 2005 amendments and availability of ex post facto waiver)