on Briefs February 7, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 00-04751,
00-04753 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge
pro se appellant, Rickie Reed, appeals as of right from the
Shelby County Criminal Court's summary denial of his
Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct
an illegal sentence. The defendant contends his motion stated
a colorable claim for relief, so the trial court erred in
summarily denying it. Discerning no error, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Reed, Hartsville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent
C. Cherry, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich,
District Attorney General; and Karen Cok, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Ross Dyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Camille R. McMullen, J., joined.
ROSS DYER, JUDGE
and Procedural History
2001, a Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the
defendant of one count of second degree murder, one count of
attempted second degree murder, and one count of reckless
aggravated assault. The reckless aggravated assault and
attempted second degree murder convictions were merged.
Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered
consecutive, Range I sentences of twenty-three years for the
second degree murder conviction and twelve years for the
attempted second degree murder conviction.
15, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal
sentence alleging: (1) his sentences violated the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution because he was
sentenced as a standard offender rather than a mitigated
offender; (2) he had no prior convictions, so he should have
been sentenced as an especially mitigated offender; (3)
alternatively, he should have received the maximum Range I
sentence of eight years for attempted second degree murder;
(4) alternatively, he should have received a sentence of
fifteen years for second degree murder; (5) the trial court
enhanced his sentences in violation of Tennessee Code
Annotated section 40-35-202(b)(1); and (6) his sentences
should have run concurrently instead of consecutively. The
trial court denied the motion, finding the defendant failed
to state a colorable claim. This timely appeal followed.
appeal, the defendant raises the same arguments asserted
before the trial court. The State argues the defendant's
claims do not entitle him to relief under Tennessee Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36.1. Upon review of the record and the
briefs, we agree with the State.
a motion states a colorable claim for correction of an
illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure
36.1 is a question of law so de novo review applies.
Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 (Tenn. 2007).
Rule 36.1 provides that the defendant "may, at any time,
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). A sentence is illegal if it is not authorized by
the applicable statutes or directly contravenes an applicable
statute. Id. If the motion states a colorable claim,
the trial court shall appoint counsel if the defendant is
indigent and not already represented by counsel and hold a
hearing on the motion, unless the parties waive the hearing.
Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(b). A "'colorable ...