Assigned on Briefs August 1, 2017
from the Criminal Court for Madison County No. 00-134 Donald
H. Allen, Judge.
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.
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.
Curwood Witt, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Robert W. Wedemeyer and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE.
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,
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
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
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.
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. He is, quite
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,