Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 99-01973 Glenn
Ivy Wright, Judge
Petitioner, Miko Burl, appeals the trial court's denial
of his motion for the correction of an illegal sentence
pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1.
Following review of the record and applicable law, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court in accordance with Rule 20 of
the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Court is Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of
Mogy, Memphis, Tennessee, for the appellant, Miko Burl.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert
W. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich,
District Attorney General; and Austin Scofield, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Everett Williams, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Alan E. Glenn and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.
EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
a jury trial, the Petitioner was convicted of aggravated
assault with the use of a deadly weapon, especially
aggravated robbery accomplished with a deadly weapon, and
aggravated burglary. T.C.A. §§ 39-13-102(a)(1)(B)
(1997), 39-13- 403(a)(1), 39-14-402(a)(3), 39-14-403(a). The
trial court sentenced the Petitioner as a Range I offender to
twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery
conviction, four years for the aggravated assault conviction,
and four years for the aggravated burglary conviction, all to
be served concurrently. On direct appeal, this court reversed
the Petitioner's aggravated assault conviction but
affirmed his other convictions. State v. Miko T.
Burl, No. W2000-02074-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1483207, at *5
(Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2002). The Petitioner filed a Rule
36.1 motion, asserting that his sentences are illegal because
the trial court erroneously applied enhancement factors. The
trial court granted the Petitioner a hearing on the motion
but denied the Petitioner's motion, finding that his
sentences were properly imposed in accordance with the
appeal, the Petitioner contends that he is entitled to relief
based on the trial court's erroneous application of
enhancement factors at the sentencing hearing. Rule 36.1 of
Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a petitioner to
"seek the correction of an illegal sentence by filing a
motion to correct an illegal sentence in the trial court in
which the judgment of conviction was entered." Tenn. R.
Crim. P. 36.1(a). The rule defines an "illegal
sentence" as "one that is not authorized by the
applicable statutes or that directly contravenes an
applicable statute." Id. Only fatal errors are
capable of rendering a sentence illegal. Cantrell v.
Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 452 (Tenn. 2011). A trial
court's misapplication of enhancing and mitigating
factors, however, is considered an appealable error that can
only be "addressed on direct appeal and not in
a post-conviction or habeas corpus proceeding."
Id. at 451; State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d
585, 595-96 (Tenn. 2015). "'[A]ttacks on the
correctness of the methodology by which a trial court imposed
[a] sentence' will not rise to the level of an illegal
sentence." State v. Joseph B. Thompson, No.
E2015-01963-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 2770178, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. May 10, 2016) (quoting Wooden, 478 S.W.3d at
sentencing ranges that applied to the Petitioner's
convictions as a Range I standard offender were fifteen to
twenty-five years for his especially aggravated robbery
conviction and three to six years at thirty percent for his
aggravated burglary conviction. See T.C.A.
§§ 39-13-403(b); 39-14-403(b); 40-35-112,
40-35-501. The trial court sentenced the Petitioner to
twenty-five years at one-hundred percent for the especially
aggravated robbery conviction and four years for the
aggravated burglary conviction, to be served concurrently.
Thus, the trial court sentenced the Petitioner within the
appropriate ranges. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court
properly denied the Petitioner's Rule 36.1 motion.
opinion would have no precedential value, this court may
affirm the judgment or action of the trial court by
memorandum opinion when the judgment is rendered or the
action taken in a proceeding without a jury and such judgment
or action is not a determination of guilt, and the evidence
does not preponderate against the finding of the trial judge.
See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. We conclude that
this case satisfies the criteria of ...