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. Vick

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

May 25, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
JASPER VICK

          Assigned on Briefs May 2, 2018

          Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 02-09113 Chris Craft, Judge

          The defendant, Jasper Vick, appeals from the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant contends his sentences are illegal because the court clerk failed to sign his original and superseding indictments. Discerning no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

         Tenn. R. App. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed

          Jasper Vick, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ronald L. Coleman, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Karen Cook, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          J. Ross Dyer, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Alan E. Glenn and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE

         FACTS

         For crimes committed on February 14, 2001, against his fourteen-year-old victim, the defendant was indicted for three counts of aggravated kidnapping and one count of sexual battery. A superseding indictment issued charging one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one count of sexual battery, and a jury convicted the defendant of the same.[1] The trial court merged the defendant's two aggravated kidnapping convictions into his especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and sentenced the defendant to an effective forty years in confinement. Specifically, the trial court imposed thirty-six years for the especially aggravated kidnapping conviction and four years for the sexual battery conviction. In doing so, the trial court found the defendant to be a Range II, multiple offender based, in part, on a 1973 conviction in South Carolina for the offense of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. State v. Jasper L. Vick, No. W2005-00467-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 WL 722173, at *8-11 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2006). The defendant subsequently appealed his convictions and sentencing.

         On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the defendant's convictions, but remanded for resentencing "for the trial court to determine whether the specific elements of the defendant's South Carolina conviction would have constituted a Class C felony in Tennessee under the state of the law as it existed at the time of the offense." State v. Vick, 242 S.W.3d 792, 794 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2007) (citing Vick, 2006 WL 722173, at *11). Upon remand, the trial court found the defendant's South Carolina conviction constituted at least a Class C felony, and again sentenced the defendant as a Range II offender. Id. at 795. The defendant appealed, and this Court ultimately instructed the trial court to sentence the defendant as a Range I offender, resulting in an effective sentence of twenty-six years.[2] The petitioner sought post-conviction relief, but failed both directly and on appeal. See Jasper Lee Vick v. State, No. W2012-01477-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL 2446280 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 4, 2013).

         On August 15, 2017, the defendant filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. In the motion, the defendant alleged the court clerk failed to sign his indictments, thus rendering his sentences for the convicted offenses illegal. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion finding the defendant failed to state a colorable claim, and this appeal followed.

         ANALYSIS

         On appeal, the defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant argues his sentences are illegal because his indictments were not signed by the court clerk. The State contends the defendant has not demonstrated a colorable claim for Rule 36.1 relief as ...


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.