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. Macklin

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

April 13, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
CHARLES MACKLIN

          Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2017

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County Nos. 08-00832, 08-06106 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge

         The defendant, Charles Macklin, appeals the trial court's dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 for failure to assert a colorable claim. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

          Charles Macklin, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Courtney N. Orr, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Karen Cook, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Alan E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE

         FACTS

         The defendant was indicted and pled guilty to one count of attempted first degree murder and one count of especially aggravated robbery and was sentenced to concurrent terms of eighteen years. Thereafter, the defendant filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and that his guilty pleas were involuntarily and unknowingly entered. Charles Macklin v. State, No. W2010-01768-CCA-R3-PC, 2011 WL 2420876, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 15, 2011), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 21, 2011). The petition was denied, and this court affirmed the denial on appeal. The Tennessee Supreme Court denied his application for permission to appeal.

         On July 12, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, alleging that his sentence was illegal because the trial court failed to place findings on the record regarding enhancement and mitigating factors. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion for failure to state a colorable claim, and the defendant appealed.

         ANALYSIS

         The defendant asserts that his sentence is illegal because the trial court imposed a sentence that was longer than the statutory minimum without making findings on the record as to enhancement and mitigating factors and thus contravening the requirements of the sentencing act. He claims that he should have been sentenced as an especially mitigated offender.

         Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 provides, in part, that a defendant may "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). An illegal sentence is defined by Rule 36.1 as "one that is not authorized by the applicable statutes or that directly contravenes an applicable statute." Id. A defendant is entitled to a hearing and the appointment of counsel if he or she states a colorable claim for relief. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(b). The Tennessee Supreme Court has stated that a colorable claim pursuant to Rule 36.1 is a "claim that, if taken as true 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.