Assigned on Briefs November 1, 2016
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 95-10473,
95-11561, 95-11562 James M. Lammey, Judge
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.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
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.
CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE
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
Marcus Deangelo Lee v. State, No.
W2013-01088-CCA-R3-CO, 2014 WL 902450, at *2 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Mar. 7, 2014).
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.
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 ...