Assigned on Briefs February 6, 2018
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 04-02649 W.
Mark Ward, Judge
Defendant, Kenneth O. Williams, entered a guilty plea to
second degree murder and was sentenced to thirty years in
prison. The Defendant filed a motion to correct his sentence
under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, asserting
that the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him
as a Range II, multiple offender or to enhance his sentence
above the minimum in the sentencing range. The trial court
denied the motion for failure to state a colorable claim, and
the Defendant appeals. After a thorough review of the record,
we conclude that the Defendant has not articulated a
colorable claim that his sentence is illegal, and we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Kenneth O. Williams, Whiteville, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Robert
W. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich,
District Attorney General; and Tracye Jones, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
Everett Williams, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Camille R. McMullen and J. Ross Dyer, JJ., joined.
EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
April 2004, the Defendant was charged with first degree
murder after firing a fatal shot into a crowd. Kenneth
Williams v. State, No. W2007-01876-CCA-R3-PC, 2008 WL
5058007, at *1, 2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 1, 2008), perm.
app. denied (Tenn. Apr. 27, 2009). On the day of trial,
the Defendant signed a plea agreement with the State in which
he agreed to plead guilty to second degree murder in exchange
for a thirty-year sentence, which was to be served one
hundred percent in confinement. Id. at *1. During
the plea colloquy, the Defendant was told that the sentence
required one hundred percent service by law, and he
subsequently expressed a desire to go to trial. Id.
However, as the potential jurors entered the courtroom, the
Defendant again changed his mind, and he ultimately entered a
guilty plea after an "extensive" plea colloquy.
Id. at *3.
Defendant subsequently filed a post-conviction petition,
asserting that his plea was not entered knowingly and
voluntarily. Id. at *1. At the post-conviction
hearing, the Defendant testified that "he understood
that the sentence for second degree murder was thirty years,
but he later learned that the sentencing range was fifteen to
twenty-five years for a standard Range I offender."
Id. at *2. This court denied post-conviction relief,
concluding that the Defendant entered his plea knowingly and
voluntarily. Id. at *3.
28, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal
sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. The
trial court denied the motion because the motion merely
alleged that the Defendant's plea was not knowing and
voluntary and did not allege that it was illegal. See
Kenneth Williams v. State, No. W2016-01858-CCA-MR3-CD
(Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 26, 2016) (order). This court
denied the Defendant's motion seeking to submit a
late-filed notice of appeal. Id.
27, 2017, the Defendant again filed a motion to correct an
illegal sentence under Rule 36.1. He alleged that his
sentence was illegal because the trial court sentenced him
outside the appropriate sentencing range without a proper
waiver of offender classification pursuant to Hicks v.
State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997). He also argued
that his sentence was illegal because the sentence was above
the minimum in the range and the trial court did not make any
findings regarding enhancement factors. The Defendant did not