Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Lee

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

January 31, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
MARCUS DEANGELO LEE

          Assigned on Briefs November 1, 2016

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 95-10473, 95-11561, 95-11562 James M. Lammey, Judge

         Pro se Petitioner, Marcus Deangelo Lee, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court's dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his motion. Upon review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

          Marcus Deangelo Lee, Springfield, Missouri, pro se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel E. Willis, Deputy Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Glen Baity, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Camille R. McMullen, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams and J. Ross Dyer, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE

         On December 11, 1995, the Petitioner pled guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to sell, possession of a deadly weapon with the intent to employ it during the commission of a crime, and the sale of cocaine. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner to serve concurrent terms of three years, one year, and three years, respectively, in the county workhouse. This court has previously recounted part of the Petitioner's procedural history as follows:

Since entering his guilty plea, appellant has filed numerous pleadings challenging his convictions, including a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State, No. W2006-02031-CCA-R3-CO, 2007 WL 1575220 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 31, 2007); a post-conviction petition, Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State, No. W2009-00256-CCA-R3-PC, 2009 WL 2517043 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 18, 2009); a motion for delayed appeal, Marcus D. Lee v. State, No. W2009-02478-CCA-R3-PC, 2010 WL 2219659 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 27, 2010); a motion to reopen his post-conviction proceedings, Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State, W2011-01003-CCA-R3-PC, 2011 WL 3849629 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2011); and a motion to correct clerical errors in his judgments, State v. Marcus Deangelo Lee, No. W2011-02160-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 2913361 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 17, 2012). All of these pleadings were either denied or dismissed, and this Court affirmed their dispositions.

Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State, No. W2013-01088-CCA-R3-CO, 2014 WL 902450, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 7, 2014).

         Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a "Motion to Correct Clerical Errors in the Judgment or Entry that Renders the Judgments Void Nunc Pro Tunc, " arguing that two of his sentences were illegal because he was released on bail when he committed the offenses, requiring the sentences to be served consecutively. See Id. at *1, *3. This court found that Rule 36.1 applied retroactively to the Petitioner's claim of an illegal sentence and remanded the case to the trial court. Id. at *6. Upon remand, the trial court found that the Petitioner's sentences were illegal because they should have been imposed consecutively, but the court denied relief because the Petitioner's sentences had expired. See Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State, No. W2014-00994-CCA-R3-CO, 2015 WL 2330063 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 13, 2015). The Petitioner again appealed, and this court held that the trial court erred in denying the Petitioner relief pursuant to Rule 36.1 and reversed and remanded the matter again. Id. at *3-4.

         On November 20, 2015, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to the remand order and determined that it could not rule on the Petitioner's issue until the pending Tennessee Supreme Court decision of State v. Brown was released, which would determine whether Rule 36.1 applied to expired sentences. On December 2, 2015, the Tennessee Supreme Court released its opinion in State v. Brown, which held that "Rule 36.1 does not authorize the correction of „expired' illegal sentences." 479 S.W.3d 200, 213 (Tenn. 2015). On December 17, 2015, the trial court entered an order dismissing the Petitioner's motion pursuant to State v. Brown and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.