State of Tennessee v. Terrance B. Smith
W2020-01596-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 22, 2021Background
- Terrance B. Smith was convicted by a Tipton County jury of first-degree murder for a 1998 killing and received a life sentence; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Smith filed and lost a post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and judicial misconduct; that denial was affirmed.
- In October 2020 Smith filed a pro se motion under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 seeking correction of an "illegal sentence," arguing (1) the life sentence was not statutorily authorized, (2) TDOC misinterpreted statutes governing release eligibility, and (3) the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.
- The trial court summarily denied the Rule 36.1 motion, finding Smith failed to state a colorable claim and observing TDOC’s role in calculating release eligibility; Smith appealed.
- This Court waived the 30-day filing requirement for Smith’s notice of appeal under the interest-of-justice standard and reviewed the Rule 36.1 denial on the merits.
- The Court affirmed: Smith failed to attach the judgment as required by Rule 36.1, his life sentence was statutorily authorized, TDOC’s interpretation aligned with controlling law, and the Eighth Amendment/Miller argument was inapplicable to an adult and not cognizable under Rule 36.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal notice | N/A (State argued untimely) | Smith: mailbox rule; mailed within 30 days | Court waived Rule 4(a) deadline in interest of justice and excused late filing |
| Rule 36.1 procedural compliance | N/A | Smith argued relief under Rule 36.1 | Smith failed to attach the judgment of conviction as required; procedural defect supports denial |
| Statutory authorization of life sentence & release eligibility | N/A | Smith: life sentence not authorized; TDOC misinterprets statutes limiting release | Life sentence authorized by statutes in effect at offense; TDOC calculation consistent with Brown v. Jordan; not a colorable Rule 36.1 claim |
| Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual) / Miller claim | N/A | Smith: life sentence excessive; relies on Miller and age-based parole concerns | Miller applies only to juveniles; Smith was an adult; Eighth Amendment excessive-sentence claims are voidable, not an "illegal sentence" under Rule 36.1; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585 (Tenn. 2015) (defines "colorable claim" and scope of Rule 36.1)
- Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445 (Tenn. 2011) (identifies fatal errors rendering a sentence illegal)
- Davis v. State, 313 S.W.3d 751 (Tenn. 2011) (clarifies what constitutes an illegal sentence)
- Brown v. Jordan, 563 S.W.3d 196 (Tenn. 2018) (interprets release eligibility for life sentences committed after July 1, 1995)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (Eighth Amendment bars mandatory life without parole for juveniles)
- State v. Rockwell, 280 S.W.3d 212 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (explains waiver of appellate filing deadlines in the interest of justice)