Assigned on Briefs September 7, 2016
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County Nos. 91-09143,
91-07725 John Wheeler Campbell, Judge.
Appellant, Jerome Wall, filed a motion to correct an illegal
sentence in the Shelby County Criminal Court pursuant to
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The trial court
denied the motion, and the Appellant appeals the ruling.
Based upon our review of the record and the parties'
briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
M. Carriker, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jerome
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; David
H. Findley, Senior Counsel; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney
General; and George Kirby May, Assistant District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
McGee Ogle, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Robert W. Wedemeyer and D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., JJ., joined.
MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE.
record reflects that the Appellant was arrested for robbery
on January 2, 1991, and aggravated robbery on May 21, 1991.
On August 21, 1992, he pled guilty to the offenses and was
sentenced to concurrent sentences of three years and ten
November 19, 2013, the Appellant filed a motion to correct an
illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1, Tennessee Rules of
Criminal Procedure, arguing that his effective ten-year
sentence was illegal because he was on bond for robbery when
he committed aggravated robbery. Thus, he was required to
serve the sentences consecutively. See Tenn. Code
Ann. § 40-20-111(b); Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(3)(C). On
April 7, 2014, the trial court summarily dismissed the motion
on the basis that the Appellant's sentences had expired.
Appellant appealed the dismissal to this court. The State
conceded on appeal that the concurrent sentencing was illegal
and that the Appellant was entitled to a hearing. This court
concluded that the Appellant had presented a colorable claim
for relief from an illegal sentence and remanded the case to
the trial court for a hearing in which "the trial court
must address the legality of the appellant's convictions
and determine whether an illegal provision was a material
component of the plea agreement." State v. Jerome
Wall, No. W2014-00782-CCA-R3-CO, 2014 WL 7332113, at *3
(Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Dec. 23, 2014).
November 12, 2015, the trial court held the hearing on the
motion. During the hearing, the Appellant testified that the
only reason he pled guilty to robbery and aggravated robbery
was because he was to serve the ten- and three-year sentences
concurrently. He stated, "That was the only thing really
bargained for. . . . [N]othing was reduced, nothing was
dismissed." He said that the State had offered to let
him plead guilty to consecutive ten- and three-year sentences
but that he rejected that offer. On cross-examination, the
Appellant testified that he currently was serving a sentence
of life without parole in Mississippi for possession of
December 18, 2015, the trial court filed a written order
denying the Appellant's Rule 36.1 motion. In the order,
the court found that the Appellant "clearly was on
bond" for the first offense when he committed the second
offense and that concurrent sentencing was illegal. However,
the court did not address whether the concurrent sentencing
was a material component of the Appellant's guilty pleas.
Instead, the court, citing State v. Brown, 479