Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs February 14, 2018
from the Circuit Court for Houston County No. 5130 Larry J.
Sanders, the Movant, filed a "Motion to Correct Illegal
Sentence" pursuant Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of
Criminal Procedure claiming that his sentence was illegal
because the State failed to comply with the ten-day notice
requirement of intent to seek enhanced punishment, the State
intentionally filed an improper notice to interfere with the
Movant's due process rights, and the trial court erred in
calculating his prior felony convictions and sentencing him
as a career offender. The trial court found that the Movant
failed to state a colorable claim and summarily dismissed the
motion. We affirm.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Sanders, Nashville, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Alexander C. Vey, Assistant Attorney General; Glenn Funk,
District Attorney General; and Craig S. Monsue, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
L. Holloway, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Robert W. Wedemeyer, J.,
L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE
5130, the Movant was convicted by a jury of two counts of the
sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, in
violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-417 and
was sentenced, as a career offender,  to fifteen years for each
count, to be run consecutively with each other and
consecutively to violations of community corrections in cases
4456, 4457, 4458, 4527, 4528, and 4693. On direct appeal,
this court affirmed the convictions. State v. Terry
Sanders, No. M2011-00426-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 5948885, at
*1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2012), perm. app.
denied (Tenn. Mar. 5, 2013). The Defendant did not
challenge his sentence on direct appeal.
Movant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief
alleging that he received the ineffective assistance of
counsel and various procedural errors at trial. After
appointment of counsel an amended petition was filed. One of
the grounds raised in the amended petition was that
"[the Movant] was sentenced to an enhanced range, which
was founded upon constitutionally infirm convictions, prior
presentence reports and judgments." Following a hearing,
the post-conviction court entered a thirty-four page
memorandum opinion addressing every issue raised in the pro
se petition and amended petition. As to the issue regarding
sentencing, the post-conviction court stated:
[The Movant] has not specified why his
'"convictions, prior presentence reports and
judgments" were "constitutionally infirm".
This Court can only speculate that he refers to the fact that
the trial judge was also the trial judge on some of [the
Movant's] previous convictions and that the said trial
judge was the prosecuting attorney on others. As has been
ruled upon hereinabove, these facts do not disqualify the
trial judge from presiding in [the Movant's] present
cases. Likewise, it does not prevent the trial judge from
considering these prior convictions in sentencing [the
The issue is without merit.
post-conviction court denied relief and the Movant timely
appealed. This court affirmed the judgment of the
post-conviction court on appeal. Terry D. Sanders v.
State, No. M2014-00236-CCA-R3-PC, 2014 WL 5502380, at *1