State of Tennessee v. Tedrik Woods, W2016-01360-CCA-R3-CD

In 2011 Woods entered Alford (best-interest) guilty pleas to two counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of employment of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony; sentences: concurrent 8-year terms (attempts) at 30% and a consecutive 3-year term at 100% (firearm).
Woods filed a pro se Rule 36.1 motion in 2016, arguing the 3-year firearm sentence was illegal under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1324(c) because employing a firearm was an essential element of his attempted murder charges. He sought correction/voiding of the 3-year firearm sentence.
The trial court summarily denied the motion as not stating a colorable claim; Woods appealed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals examined the judgment, plea transcript, and governing statute and found the firearm conviction arose from conduct on February 6, 2009, when the statutory mandatory minimum for employment of a firearm (a Class C felony) was six years.
Because the uniform judgment reflected a three-year sentence where the statute mandated a six-year mandatory minimum at 100% service, the appellate court held the judgment was facially illegal and remanded for Rule 36.1 proceedings to determine whether the illegal aspect was a material part of the plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Woods stated a colorable Rule 36.1 claim that his 3-year firearm sentence is illegal	Woods: The 3-year firearm sentence is illegal because employing a firearm was an essential element of his attempted second-degree murder convictions, so he cannot be separately sentenced for it under § 39-17-1324(c)	State: Rule 36.1 cannot be used to attack convictions; employing a firearm is not an element of attempted second-degree murder, so no colorable claim	Court: Although Woods’ theory about element duplication was weak, the judgment itself was facially illegal because statute mandated a 6-year mandatory minimum; remanded for Rule 36.1 proceedings
Whether a three-year sentence for employment of a firearm violated the statutory mandatory minimum	Woods: Sentence is impermissible under statute and plea lacked authority	State: Plea imposed authorized consecutive 100% service but no issue with term length	Court: The 3-year term violated the statutory mandatory minimum for the firearm offense (6 years at 100%); sentence is illegal on its face
What remedy is required when an illegal sentence entered pursuant to a plea is discovered	Woods: Correction/voiding of the illegal sentence	State: Motion fails; no relief under Rule 36.1	Court: Remand under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(c)(3) to determine if the illegal aspect was a material term of the plea; then either amend judgment, deny motion, or allow plea withdrawal per rule

State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200 (Tenn. 2015) (Rule 36.1 summary-dismissal and colorable-claim standard)
State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (definition of a colorable claim under Rule 36.1 and de novo review)
Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (Rule 36.1 cannot be used to collaterally attack convictions)
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251 (Tenn. 2007) (standard of review for Rule 36.1/legal-sentence questions)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (explaining the Alford plea / guilty plea entered to avoid death penalty or for best interest)