Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 199784 Don W.
se appellant, Stephan Lajuan Beasley, Sr., appeals as of
right from the Hamilton County Criminal Court's order
denying his motion for correction of illegal sentence. Tenn.
R. Crim. P. 36.1. The State has filed a motion requesting
that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief
pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals. Following our review, we conclude that the
State's motion is well-taken and affirm the judgment of
the Hamilton County Criminal Court.
R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed
Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Stephan Lajuan Beasley, Sr., Only, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; John
H. Bledsoe, Senior Counsel; Neal Pinkston, District Attorney
General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
McGee Ogle, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which
James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., JJ.,
MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE
court has detailed previously most of the procedural history
of the appellant's challenges to his 1994 first degree
In 1994, a Hamilton County Criminal Court Jury convicted the
petitioner of first degree premeditated murder and sentenced
him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The petitioner appealed his conviction, arguing that the
State failed to prove premeditation and deliberation, and
this court affirmed his conviction and sentence. See
State v. Stephen Lajaun Beasley, No.
03C01-9509-CR-00268, 1996 WL 591203, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App.,
at Knoxville, Oct. 10, 1996).
Thereafter, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief,
alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The
post-conviction court denied the petition, and, on appeal,
this court affirmed the judgment of the post-conviction
court. See Stephen Lajuan Beasley v. State, No.
E2000-01336-CCA-R3-PC, 2001 WL 387385, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App., at Knoxville, Apr. 17, 2001).
In 2004, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, "alleging that the indictment was defective;
that the state improperly amended the indictment during
trial; that there was a fatal variance between the indictment
and the proof at trial; and that the sentence was illegal
because the jury was permitted to consider improper evidence
during the sentencing phase." Stephen Lajuan Beasley
v. State, No. E2005-00367-CCA-MR3-HC, 2005 WL 3533265,
at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Dec. 27, 2005). The
habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, the
petitioner appealed, and this court affirmed the judgment of
the habeas corpus court. Id.
In August 2011, the petitioner filed a second petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, arguing that "the trial court
'had no jurisdiction to instruct trial jury and argue
murder in perpetration of felony reckless' [and that] he
'was not indicted nor charged with the offense of
Burglary or theft, nor did Petitioner plea[d] guilty [to]
such offenses.'" Stephen L. Beasley v.
State, No. W2011-01956-CCA-R3-HC, 2012 WL 2384051, at *3
(Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, June 25, 2012). The habeas
corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, the petitioner
appealed, and this court affirmed the judgment of the habeas
Stephan L. Beasley, Sr. v. State, No.
E2012-02208-CCA-R3-HC, slip op. at 1 (Tenn. Crim. App., at
Knoxville, Oct.15, 2013) (affirming third denial of habeas
the appellant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis
in the Hamilton County Criminal Court. This court affirmed
the trial court's denial of relief. Stephan Lajuan
Beasley, Sr. v. State, No. E2013-00695-CCA-R3-CO (Tenn.
Crim. App., at Knoxville, June 1, 2014). The appellant also
sought an appeal from the denial of a writ of certiorari,
which was dismissed by this court. Stephan L. Beasley,
Sr. v. State, No. E2014-00698-CCA-R3-CO, Order (Tenn.
Crim. App., at Knoxville, Nov. 19, 2014). Most recently, this
court denied the appellant's petition for writ ...