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. McKinley

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

June 8, 2018

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
BOBBY MCKINLEY

          Assigned on Briefs January 4, 2018

          Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 09-02409, 09-03985 J. Robert Carter, Jr., Judge

         The pro se Defendant, Bobby McKinley, appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his motion to vacate his judgments for aggravated robbery, arguing that the uniform judgment forms were not properly entered because the "file-stamp" was not on the face of the judgments and the judgments contained other clerical errors. Following our review, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

         Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Appeal DISMISSED

          Bobby McKinley, Mason, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Jonathan H. Wardle, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Glen Baity, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Alan E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which John Everett Williams and Camille R. McMullen, JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE

         FACTS

         The record in this case is sparse and incomplete. From the documents included, it appears that on April 14, 2009, the Shelby County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging the Defendant in case number 09-02409 with two counts of aggravated robbery. On June 25, 2009, the Shelby County Grand Jury returned another indictment charging the Defendant in case number 09-03985 with four additional counts of aggravated robbery. On January 21, 2010, the Defendant entered guilty pleas in connection with those two cases, as well as case number 09-02221, in which he was apparently charged with attempted aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. Included in the record are three judgments, one for count one of case number 09-02409, one for count one of 09-03985, and a second judgment for count one of 09-03985 that appears to show where the pretrial jail credit period was changed to 10/5/08 through 1/21/10.

         The judgments reflect that the Defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to eight years at thirty percent for the aggravated robbery in count one of case number 09-02409 and eight years at thirty percent for the aggravated robbery in count one of case number 09-03985. The judgments further reflect that the sentences were ordered to be served concurrently to each other and to the sentences in case number 09-02221. Each judgment is signed by the Defendant, the Defendant's counsel, the prosecutor and the judge and has a date of entry of January 21, 2010. A file-stamp is not on the copies of the judgments that are included in the record and the portions of the judgments with spaces for the name of the attorney for the State, the Defendant's alias, "TDOC #, " "State Control #" and "State ID #" are left blank.

         On April 19, 2017, the Defendant filed a pro se "Motion Requesting an Order to Vacate or Set Aside Judgment" in which he alleged that the judgments for count one in case number 09-03985 and count one in case number 09-02409 were "ineffective, invalid and/or defective" because the "file-stamp" was not stamped on the face of the judgments and the above-mentioned information was omitted. The Defendant also included a one line sentence asserting that his counsel provided ineffective assistance during sentencing.

         On May 10, 2017, the trial court entered an order denying the Defendant's motion. Among other things, the court found that the omissions constituted "clerical errors, at best." The court also noted that the Defendant, from his pleadings, was currently in federal custody and was attempting in his motion to attack expired state ...


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.