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. Ramos

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

June 28, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
JESUS BALTAZAR DIAZ RAMOS, AKA ENRIQUE RUANO DIAZ

          Assigned on Briefs June 20, 2017

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-A-510 Seth W. Norman, Judge

         Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure in which he sought to correct his allegedly illegal sentence. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

          Jesus Baltazar Diaz Ramos, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Alexander C. Vey, Assistant Attorney General; Glenn R. Funk, District Attorney General; and Dan Hamm, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Timothy L. Easter, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Alan E. Glenn and Robert H. Montgomery, Jr., JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE.

         Factual Background

         Over ten and one-half years ago, Defendant, Jesus Baltazar Diaz Ramos, aka Enrique Ruano Diaz, raped a three-year-old female child. The alleged offense date was December 15, 2006, according to the indictment. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of aggravated rape of a child, sentenced to forty years as a persistent offender and required to serve 100% of his sentence. This Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. See State v. Ramos, 331 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010).

         On August 30, 2016, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the motion, Defendant argued that his sentence was illegal because he was sentenced as a persistent offender. Defendant also argued that the jury was not impartial, that he was improperly classified as a persistent offender, that certain evidence was admitted during trial, and that the indictment was invalid. Defendant attached the affidavit for the arrest warrant to his motion. The affidavit indicated that the offense took place on December 16, 2006.

         After reviewing the motion for relief, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. The trial court found that the only cognizable claim in the motion related to Defendant's offender classification but that Defendant was sentenced according to statute as a Range III offender and required to serve 100% of the sentence. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

         Analysis

         On appeal, Defendant argues that he stated a colorable claim and that the trial court should not have dismissed his motion without a hearing. Defendant again argues that his sentence is illegal because the indictment and arrest warrant were invalid 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.