State of Tennessee v. Robert Guerrero, M2016-00481-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Robert Guerrero was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder and nine counts of attempted first-degree murder; sentenced to two consecutive life terms plus nine consecutive 15-year terms (total two lives + 135 years).
On direct appeal Guerrero challenged consecutive sentencing, arguing the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to support labeling him a "dangerous offender" under T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b)(4).
This Court affirmed on direct appeal, concluding that even if the "dangerous offender" finding were erroneous, the record and Guerrero’s concession showed the trial court validly imposed consecutive sentences because Guerrero was on probation when he committed the offenses (T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b)(6)).
Guerrero later filed a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the nine consecutive 15-year sentences were illegal because the trial court did not expressly base them on one of the seven statutory bases for consecutive sentencing.
The trial court summarily denied the Rule 36.1 motion; Guerrero appealed. The Court reviewed Rule 36.1 jurisprudence distinguishing clerical, appealable, and fatal (illegal) sentencing errors.
The Court held the consecutive 15-year sentences were authorized by statute (probation violation basis) and therefore not "illegal" under Rule 36.1; the Rule 36.1 denial was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the nine consecutive 15-year attempted-murder sentences are illegal under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1	State: The sentences are lawful because consecutive sentencing was authorized by statute (probation status) and previously affirmed on appeal.	Guerrero: Trial court lacked statutory authority to run the nine 15-year sentences consecutively because the court didn’t explicitly cite one of the § 40-35-115 enumerated bases (as he interprets the record).	Court: Denied — sentences lawful; probation-at-time-of-offense basis justified consecutive terms and makes them authorized, not "illegal."
Whether Rule 36.1 relief is available for non-fatal/appealable sentencing errors	State: Rule 36.1 reaches only illegal (fatal) errors; procedural or appellate-type errors are not cognizable.	Guerrero: Characterizes the sentencing rationale omission as rendering the sentences unauthorized and therefore illegal.	Court: Denied — Guerrero’s argument raises an appealable/methodology issue, not a fatal statutory-authority defect; Rule 36.1 relief improper.
Whether the trial court’s characterization of the motion as frivolous affects denial	State: Superfluous language does not change the substantive denial for failure to state a claim.	Guerrero: Argues the frivolous label was improper.	Court: Denied relief on merits; called the "frivolous" language superfluous but not outcome-determinative.
Whether prior direct-appeal resolution forecloses Rule 36.1 relief	State: Direct appeal resolved the statutory-authority basis (probation) supporting consecutive sentences.	Guerrero: Seeks to relitigate sentencing basis via Rule 36.1.	Court: Denied — prior appellate determination that probation justified consecutive sentences controls; Rule 36.1 cannot be used to relitigate.

Key Cases Cited

Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines "illegal sentence" under Rule 36.1 consistent with habeas corpus/Cantrell framework; distinguishes clerical, appealable, and fatal sentencing errors)
Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (framework for identifying illegal or void sentences for habeas/Rule 36.1 purposes)