Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville
on Briefs May 17, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Morgan County No. 2011-CR-41A
Paul G. Summers, Senior Judge.
2012, a Morgan County jury found the Defendant, John
Brichetto, guilty of theft of property valued at more than
$60, 000. The trial court sentenced the Defendant to ten
years of incarceration and ordered him to pay $142, 215 in
restitution to the victim. In 2016, the Defendant filed one
of several motions pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal
Procedure 36.1, seeking to correct an illegal sentence. The
trial court summarily denied Rule 36.1 relief. On review,
having determined that the Petitioner has failed to state a
colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Brichetto, Pikeville, Tennessee, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert
W. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General; L. Russell Johnson,
District Attorney General; and Tiffany S. Smith, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J. and John Everett Williams, J.,
W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE.
Facts and Procedural History
case arises out of the Defendant and his wife stealing
property valued at more than $60, 000. A Morgan County jury
found the Defendant guilty of the offense, and the trial
court sentenced him to ten years as a standard Range I
offender and ordered him to pay $142, 215.00 in restitution.
According to the record, at the Defendant's sentencing
hearing, the Defendant "formally, knowingly and
voluntarily waived his rights to any and all appeals, further
legal remedies, or other efforts to seek relief on any
grounds" in exchange for leniency for his wife's
Defendant subsequently filed multiple motions challenging his
sentence, including a motion to request records and for
another restitution hearing. On June 28, 2016, the Defendant
filed the Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence
that is the subject of this appeal. In it, he contended that
his sentence was illegal because it had been enhanced
improperly pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section
40-35-114. The trial court summarily denied relief, and it is
from this judgment that the Defendant now appeals.
appeal, the Defendant asserts that the trial court erred when
it summarily dismissed his motion based on the "Waiver
of Rights." He also contends that his trial counsel
failed to file a motion for new trial following his