Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs June 20, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-A-510
Seth W. Norman, Judge
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.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
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.,
TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE.
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).
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.
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
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 ...