Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs March 14, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2000-D-2269
Steve R. Dozier, Judge
Appellant, Carvin L. Thomas, filed a motion to correct an
illegal sentence in the Davidson County Criminal Court
pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The
trial court summarily dismissed the motion, and the Appellant
appeals the ruling. Based upon our review of the record and
the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
L.Thomas, Only, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Alexander C. Vey, Assistant Attorney General; and Glenn Funk,
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
McGee Ogle, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Robert W. Wedemeyer and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.
MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE
a jury trial, the Appellant was convicted of count one,
especially aggravated robbery; count two, aggravated
burglary; count four, especially aggravated kidnapping; count
seven, unlawful possession of a handgun at a place open to
the public; and count eight, simple possession of cocaine as
a lesser-included offense of felony possession. State v.
Carvin Lamont Thomas, No. M2002-01716-CCA-R3-CD, 2003 WL
21233512, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, May 28,
2003), perm. to appeal denied, (Tenn. Oct. 27,
2003). The trial court sentenced the Appellant to ten years
for especially aggravated robbery; six years for aggravated
burglary; twenty-four years for especially aggravated
kidnapping; eleven months, twenty-nine days for possession of
a handgun; and eleven months, twenty-nine days for simple
possession. Id. The trial court ordered that the
Appellant serve the sentences for the especially aggravated
robbery, aggravated burglary, and especially aggravated
kidnapping convictions consecutively and that he serve the
sentences for the possession of a handgun and simple
possession convictions concurrently with the other sentences
for a total effective sentence of forty years. Id.
On direct appeal of his convictions, the Appellant challenged
only his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction.
Id. This court upheld the conviction and affirmed
the judgment of the trial court. Id.
20, 2016, the Appellant filed a pro se motion to correct an
illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1, Tennessee Rules of
Criminal Procedure, arguing that his effective forty-year
sentence was illegal because the trial court ordered that he
serve the ten-year sentence in count one consecutively to the
six-year sentence in count two and simultaneously ordered
that he serve the six-year sentence in count two
consecutively to the ten-year sentence in count one and the
twenty-four-year sentence in count four. He contended that
the trial court failed to consider the "correct method
of service" when imposing the sentences and created
"an impossible sentence to serve, which is
illegal." On August 1, 2016, the trial court summarily
dismissed the motion, finding that it failed to state a
colorable claim under Rule 36.1.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in summarily
dismissing his Rule 36.1 motion because his sentences were
imposed in a manner that makes them impossible to serve and,
thus, illegal. The State argues that because the Appellant
only challenges the trial court's procedure of imposing
the sentences, the ...