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.

Lee v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

August 15, 2017

MARCUS DEANGELO LEE
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE

          Assigned on Briefs June 6, 2017

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 97-01964 John W. Campbell, Judge.

         The Defendant, Marcus Deangelo Lee, pleaded guilty in 1997 to escape from felony incarceration, and the trial court sentenced him to one year and ordered that his sentence run consecutively to a three-year sentence the Defendant received for drug-related and firearm convictions in 1995. Since that time, the Defendant has been arrested and convicted on other charges unrelated to this case. Almost seventeen years later, the Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 with regard to jail credits for his 1997 felony escape conviction. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, and the Defendant appeals. On appeal, he contends that the trial court erred when it summarily dismissed his motion because the trial court improperly amended his judgment to reflect 103 days of jail credit, which he argues resulted in his sentences running concurrently rather than consecutively as mandated by statute. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

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

          Marcus DeAngelo Lee, Springfield, Missouri, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia S. Lee, Senior Counsel; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and G. Kirby May, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Robert W. Wedemeyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Norma McGee Ogle, J., joined.

          OPINION

          ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE.

         I. Facts

         This case arises from the Defendant's escape from incarceration in 1997. The Defendant has been before this court on nine previous occasions and has been before a federal appellate court numerous other times, never obtaining the relief he sought and, on occasion, having his appeal dismissed because it was not filed in good faith. Because the procedural history is so complex, we will only summarize it as it relates to our holding.

         The Defendant filed his motion to correct an illegal judgment entered on May 30, 1997, as amended on September 3, 1998. That judgment of conviction shows that the Defendant pleaded guilty to felony escape from an institution where he was incarcerated serving time for felony drug related and firearm offenses committed in 1995. The trial court sentenced him as a Range I Offender, to one year in the workhouse. The Defendant asserted in his motion to correct the judgment that, as a part of his felony escape plea agreement, the "state promised [him] . . . a 1 year sentence at 30%, with 103 days jail credit in exchange for his admission of guilt." The Defendant asserted that, after he was incarcerated, he noticed that his judgment of conviction did not reflect the jail credit. He notified his defense counsel, and ultimately an amended judgment was issued in September 1998 showing the jail credit.

         In the Defendant's Rule 36.1 motion currently before us, filed some seventeen years later, he now asserts that the trial court improperly granted him the 103 days of jail credit because the Court "effectively ran [his] felony escape sentence concurrent with his Sale of Controlled Substance offense when it awarded him 103 days jail credit that was promised to him by the State, in direct contravention of T.C.A. 39-16-605(c)."

         The trial court summarily dismissed his petition, and the Defendant filed an appeal.

         II. ...


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.