Assigned on Briefs March 13, 2018
from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 09-00026,
06-01192 James C. Beasley, Jr., Judge
se Defendant, Leonardo Williams, appeals from the trial
court's denial of his "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside,
or Correct an Illegal Sentence." Following our review,
we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Leonardo Williams, Yazoo City, Mississippi, Pro Se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ronald
L. Coleman, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich,
District Attorney General; and Michael McCusker, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
James Curwood Witt, Jr., and Timothy L. Easter, JJ., joined.
E. GLENN, JUDGE
1, 2009, the Defendant pled guilty to charges pending in two
separate cases. See State v. Leonardo Williams, No.
W2015-02434-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 6078565, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. Oct. 14, 2016), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Jan.
20, 2017). He pled guilty to one count of solicitation of the
sale of cocaine in Case Number 06-01192, and he pled guilty
to unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to sell in Case
Number 09-00026. Id. The sentences for the two drug
convictions were aligned consecutively for a total effective
sentence of four years on probation. Id. On January
4, 2013, the Defendant's probation was revoked.
Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion to correct an
illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal
Procedure 36.1. Id. The trial court summarily
dismissed the motion, finding that it failed to state a
colorable claim, as the Defendant's sentences were not
illegal. Id. The Defendant appealed, arguing that
"his three-year sentence had expired and that he was
'four months into [his] one-year sentence' when his
probation was revoked." Id. This court
determined that the Defendant's sentences were not
illegal and affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
Id. at *2.
October 31, 2016, the Defendant filed a pro se motion
entitled "Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct an
Illegal Sentence." In his motion, the Defendant
challenged the calculation of his probationary period and
essentially argued that, in revoking his probation, the court
reinstated a sentence that had already expired. On February
21, 2017, the trial court found that the motion failed to
state a colorable claim and summarily dismissed the motion,
noting that the Defendant had filed the exact motion in 2015.
Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erroneously
construed his motion as a Rule 36.1 motion and not as a
petition for post-conviction relief as he had indicated in
the body of the motion. Lending to the confusion, in his
motion and briefs, the Defendant cites legal authority
relevant to Rule 36.1 motions, as well as writs of habeas
corpus. As we understand it, the gist of the Defendant's
argument is that the trial court violated his protection
against double jeopardy "by revoking his probation, and
resentencing him to serve a custodial ...