from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 99-01973 Glenn
Ivy Wright, Judge
Appellant, Miko T. Burl, is appealing the trial court's
denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The
State has filed a motion asking this Court to affirm pursuant
to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Order of the Trial Court
Affirmed Pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule
T. Burl, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter;
Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant Attorney General, for the
Appellee, State of Tennessee.
Everett Williams, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Alan E. Glenn and Camille R. McMullen, JJ. joined.
EVERTT WILLIAMS, JUDGE
2000, the Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault,
aggravated burglary and especially aggravated robbery. The
trial court sentenced the Appellant as a standard Range I
offender to twenty-five years for the especially aggravated
robbery conviction and four years each for the other two
convictions, all to be served concurrently. On direct appeal,
this Court reversed the aggravated assault conviction but
affirmed the other two convictions. State v. Miko T.
Burl, No. W2000-02074-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1483207 (Tenn.
Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2002). The denial of the Appellant's
first motion to correct an illegal sentence was affirmed on
appeal by this Court on February 22, 2017. State v. Miko
Burl, No. W2016-00670-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb.
22, 2017). In that motion, the Appellant argued his sentences
were illegal because the trial court misapplied enhancement
factors. This Court disagreed, noting that the sentences
imposed were within the appropriate statutory ranges.
See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-403(b);
39-14-403(b); 40-35-112; 40-35-501. On June 5, 2017, the
Appellant filed his second motion to correct an illegal
sentence. The Appellant again complained the trial court
erroneously sentenced him to the maximum sentence within the
applicable range for the especially aggravated robbery
conviction. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion
because the issue was previously decided. This appeal ensued.
Following the filing of the record on appeal and the
Appellant's brief, the State filed a motion to affirm the
ruling of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20. For the
reasons stated below, said motion is hereby granted.
Rule 36.1 of Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a
petitioner to "seek the correction of an illegal
sentence by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence in
the trial court in which the judgment of conviction was
entered." Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(a). The rule defines an
"illegal sentence" as "one that is not
authorized by the applicable statutes or that directly
contravenes an applicable statute." Id. Only
fatal errors are capable of rendering a sentence illegal.
Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 452 (Tenn.
2011). A trial court's misapplication of enhancing and
mitigating factors, however, is considered an appealable
error that can only be "addressed on direct appeal and
not in a post-conviction or habeas corpus proceeding."
Id. at 451; State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d
585, 595-96 (Tenn. 2015). "'[A]ttacks on the
correctness of the methodology by which a trial court imposed
[a] sentence' will not rise to the level of an illegal
sentence." State v. Joseph B. Thompson, No.
E2015-01963-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 2770178, at *1 (Tenn. Crim.
App. May 10, 2016) (quoting Wooden, 478 S.W.3d at
W2016-00670-CCA-R3-CD at 2. The Appellant's current
complaint about being sentenced to the maximum sentence
within the applicable range falls squarely within the
category of appealable errors and is thus not actionable in a
Rule 36.1 motion. Accordingly, this Court's analysis in
the previous appeal controls the outcome herein. The trial
court did not err in summarily dismissing the motion. Tenn.
R. Crim. P. 36.1(b)(2).
Appellant also raises for the first time in his brief on
appeal a claim that his sentence violates the principles
announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296
(2004). Issues raised for the first time on appeal are
considered waived. See State v. Johnson, 970 S.W.2d
500, 508 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Regardless, the Appellant
would not otherwise be entitled to relief on that claim.
See State v. Rafael Antonio Bush, No.
M2016-01537-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 2376825 at*7 (Tenn. Crim. App.
June 1, 2017).
ruling of the trial court is hereby affirmed in accordance