State of Tennessee v. Robert Allen Territo
M2016-00548-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jul 13, 2017Background
- In 2008 Territo was indicted for aggravated sexual battery, two counts of rape of a child, and three counts of incest based on sexual contact with his 12-year-old daughter.
- In 2010 he pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated sexual battery pursuant to a plea agreement: he waived jury trial and appeal, agreed to plead outside his range, and the State dismissed remaining counts.
- The plea specified sentencing him as a Range II offender and resulted in an effective 15-year sentence to be served at 100%.
- In January–February 2016 Territo, proceeding pro se, filed multiple motions including a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing he should have been sentenced as a Range I offender, that the court improperly enhanced his sentence above the statutory minimum, that Rule 11 was violated when his plea was accepted, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The trial court summarily dismissed his motions as untimely and concluded he failed to state a colorable claim of an illegal sentence; Territo appealed and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence is illegal because Territo was sentenced as Range II instead of Range I | Territo: plea produced an illegal sentence outside his applicable range and above statutory minimum | State: plea-bargained sentence within statutory maximum; not an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 | Held: No illegal sentence; plea-bargained departure is permissible so long as it does not exceed statutory maximum for the offense |
| Whether trial court violated Rule 11 by accepting guilty plea | Territo: Rule 11 was abrogated when court accepted plea outside range | State: procedural claim does not render sentence illegal; not a proper Rule 36.1 claim | Held: Rule 11 claim not cognizable under Rule 36.1; plea validity issues do not make sentence illegal here |
| Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance in allowing sentence above minimum / outside range | Territo: counsel ineffective for permitting out-of-range plea and enhanced sentence | State: ineffective-assistance claim is not properly raised in Rule 36.1 and is time-barred for post-conviction relief | Held: Ineffective-assistance claim is an appealable/post-conviction issue, not a Rule 36.1 illegal-sentence claim; barred by statute of limitations if treated as post-conviction |
| Whether the motion stated a colorable claim entitling Territo to a hearing under Rule 36.1 | Territo: motion alleges facts that, if true, make sentence illegal | State: motion fails to state colorable claim under Rule 36.1 | Held: Motion fails to state a colorable claim; summary dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 colorable-claim and hearing standards)
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (framework: clerical, appealable, and fatal sentencing errors)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (definition of fatal sentencing errors that render sentences void)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2010) (examples of sentencing errors that make sentences illegal)
- Hoover v. State, 215 S.W.3d 776 (Tenn. 2007) (plea-bargained sentence may exceed offender-range maximum if within statutory maximum for the offense)
- Bland v. Dukes, 97 S.W.3d 133 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (offender classifications are non-jurisdictional and may be used in plea bargaining)
- Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of review for questions of law on Rule 36.1 issues)