Assigned on Briefs March 13, 2018
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 92-05779 Glenn
petitioner, Ronnie Bradfield, appeals from the summary
dismissal of his pro se pleading, in which pleading the
petitioner asked for relief via the writ of error coram
nobis, the writ of habeas corpus, and Tennessee Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36.1. Because the record supports the
dismissal, we affirm.
R. App. P. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court
Bradfield, Whitefield, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ronald
L. Coleman, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich,
District Attorney General; and Gavin A. Smith and Lora
Fowler, Assistant District Attorneys General, for the
appellee, State of Tennessee.
Curwood Witt, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Alan E. Glenn and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE.
March 25, 1993, a Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted
the petitioner of three counts of attempted second degree
murder, and the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of
nine years' incarceration for each of the
petitioner's convictions. See State v. Ronnie
Bradfield, No. 02C01-9306-CR-00112 (Tenn. Crim. App.,
Jackson, July 19, 1995). While he was being remanded into
custody immediately following the sentencing hearing in that
case, the petitioner "removed a pistol from his shoe,
" and, during the ensuing struggle with the courtroom
bailiffs, the petitioner bit one of the bailiffs. State
v. Bradfield, 973 S.W.2d 937, 941-42 (Tenn. Crim. App.
1997). As a result of the melee, the petitioner was later
convicted of attempted first-degree murder, carrying a
firearm during judicial proceedings, and possession of a
firearm after being convicted of a felony. Id.
ensuing 25 years, the petitioner has mounted numerous
challenges against all of his convictions. Most recently, on
August 26, 2016, the petitioner filed a pleading entitled
"Petitioner's Rule 36.1 Motion to Vacate Illegally
Imposed Sentence And/Or Writ of Error Coram Nobis And/Or Writ
of Habeas Corpus." The style of the petitioner's
pleading listed case numbers that related to his convictions
of attempted second degree murder. In his pleading, the
petitioner first challenged the nine-year sentence imposed
for his convictions of attempted second degree murder,
claiming that the term of incarceration should have been less
than nine years because he had no prior felony convictions
and because the trial court used other than jury-determined
facts to enhance the sentences. He also challenged his
convictions on grounds that the admission of certain evidence
violated the Confrontation Clause. In its response to the
petitioner's pleading, the State asserted that the
petitioner was not entitled to relief under Tennessee Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36.1 because the nine-year sentence has
expired and because the petitioner failed to state a
colorable claim for relief. The trial court summarily
dismissed the pleading, finding that the petitioner had
failed to state a colorable claim for relief under Rule 36.1.
appeal, the petitioner asserts that the trial court erred by
summarily dismissing his pleading without ruling upon his
claims to coram nobis and habeas corpus relief. He also
claims entitlement to relief, although it is unclear in what
form, on grounds that a variety of violations "resulted
in a cumulative constitutional violation." Specifically,
he claims that his sentence violated his constitutional
rights, that the trial court violated his right to confront
the witnesses against him by preventing him from
cross-examining the State's expert who declared him
competent to stand trial, that the evidence is insufficient
to support his convictions, that the prosecutor improperly
called him a "mentally disturbed" person during
closing argument, and that the "trial
attorney"and the prosecutor violated his
constitutional right to present a defense by preventing him
from presenting evidence of his post-traumatic stress
disorder. The State contends that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief under Rule 36.1 because his sentences have
expired, because he failed to state a colorable claim for
relief, and because the sentences imposed were legal.
of the vehicle employed for the attack, the petitioner is not
entitled to any form of relief based upon any of the claims
he has made.
petitioner cannot obtain relief from the effective nine-year
sentence imposed in this case via a motion to correct an
illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 because the sentence has
expired. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1 ("Except
for a motion filed by the state pursuant to subdivision (d)
of this rule, a motion to correct an illegal sentence must be
filed before the sentence set forth in the judgment order
expires."); see also State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d
200, 211 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that "Rule 36.1 does not
authorize relief from expired illegal sentences"). Even
without this bar, however, the petitioner would not be
entitled to relief under the rule because, as this court has
twice informed the petitioner already, the claim that the
sentence was enhanced based upon factors not found by the
jury is not a colorable claim for relief under Rule 36.1.
Ronnie Bradfield v. State, No. W2014-01735-CCA-R3-PC
(Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, May 18, 2015) (Memorandum
Opinion); Ronnie Bradfield v. Tony Parker, Warden,
No. W2008-02231-CCA-R3-HC (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, June
10, 2009) (Memorandum Opinion).
the petitioner cannot obtain relief via a petition for writ
of habeas corpus because his sentences have expired.
Additionally, the pleading filed by the petitioner fails to
comply with the mandatory statutory requirements for filing a
petition for writ of habeas corpus, see T.C.A.
§§ 29-21-105 to -112, and fails to state a
cognizable claim for habeas ...