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. Moore

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

September 13, 2017

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
ANTHONY L. MOORE

          Assigned on Briefs August 1, 2017

         Appeal from the Criminal Court for Madison County No. 00-134 Donald H. Allen, Judge.

         The defendant, Anthony L. Moore, moved the trial court, pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36, to correct a clerical error with regard to the reflection of pretrial jail credits on the judgment for his 2000 Madison County Criminal Court jury conviction of aggravated burglary. Discerning no error, we affirm.

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

          Anthony L. Moore, Tiptonville, Tennessee, pro se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Assistant Attorney General; Jerry Woodall, District Attorney General; and Al Earls, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Robert W. Wedemeyer and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE.

         A Madison County Criminal Court jury convicted the defendant of one count of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated burglary for breaking into a hotel room occupied by the victim, Larry Felts, and taking $120, "a pack of cigarettes, and a red cigarette lighter" from the victim at gunpoint. State v. Anthony Leon Moore, No. W2000-02862-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Feb. 11, 2002). The trial court imposed Range II sentences of 15 years for the aggravated robbery conviction and 10 years for the aggravated burglary conviction and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively to one another for a total effective sentence of 25 years. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal, see id., and later affirmed the denial of the defendant's petition for post-conviction relief from his convictions, see Anthony Leon Moore v. State, No. W2004-02039-CCA-R3-PC (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Sept. 12, 2005). A later bid for habeas corpus relief was similarly unsuccessful. Anthony Leon Moore v. Joe Easterling, Warden, No. W2010-01082-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Jan. 26, 2011) (Rule 20 Memorandum Opinion). Most recently, this court affirmed the summary dismissal of the defendant's motion, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what the defendant believed to be an illegal sentence imposed for his conviction of aggravated burglary. See State v. Anthony Leon Moore, No. W2016-01442-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, June 12, 2017).

         On November 28, 2016, the defendant moved the trial court pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct a "clerical error . . . as it relates to awarding mandatory pre-trial jail credits" on his judgment for aggravated burglary. The defendant acknowledged that pretrial jail credits had been applied to his sentence for aggravated robbery but claimed that the same number of credits should have been applied to his sentence for aggravated burglary, which sentence the trial court ordered to be served consecutively to the sentence for aggravated robbery. In its response to the defendant's motion, the State acknowledged that the defendant was entitled to 255 days' jail credit and that documentation from the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC") indicated that TDOC had applied the credits to the defendant's sentence for aggravated robbery despite that the judgment form did not include an award of pretrial jail credits. The State submitted to the court a corrected judgment form for the defendant's aggravated robbery conviction that reflected the award of 255 days' pretrial jail credit. The trial court entered the corrected judgment form on November 30, 2016. Two days later, the trial court dismissed the defendant's motion, concluding that the motion was "rendered moot by entry of the corrected judgment."

         Ten days later, after the defendant had filed his notice of appeal, the defendant moved the trial court to reconsider its decision and grant him 255 days' jail credit on his conviction of aggravated burglary. The trial court denied the motion.

         In this appeal, the defendant maintains that the trial court erred by dismissing his motion as moot, arguing that he is entitled to 255 days' jail credit for his conviction of aggravated burglary. The State, misconstruing the defendant's motion as a Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, argues that a claim for pretrial jail credits is not a cognizable claim for relief under Rule 36.1.

         Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 provides, "After giving any notice it considers appropriate, the court may at any time correct clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record, and errors in the record arising from oversight or omission." Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36. Here, the defendant contends that the judgment form for his conviction of aggravated burglary should reflect an award of pretrial jail credit identical to that reflected in the judgment form for his conviction of aggravated robbery.[1] He is, quite simply, incorrect.

         Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-209 provides that, for each conviction, the "district attorney general shall complete and file within thirty (30) days the uniform judgment document for the conviction that is signed by all parties; but if not signed by the parties, the clerk shall make a copy of the document available to the parties before entry by the court." T.C.A. § 40-35-209(e)(1). Code section 40-35-209 also specifies the information that must be contained in the uniform judgment document, see id., including the award of pretrial jail credits, see id. § 40-35-209(e)(1)(P), and our supreme court has promulgated a form document to satisfy these requirements, see ...


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.