from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-11060,
02-09113 Paula L. Skahan, Judge
se Appellant, Jasper L. Vick, appeals the Shelby County
Criminal Court's dismissal of his motion to correct an
illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion requesting
that this Court affirm the lower court's denial of relief
pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals. Because the Appellant has failed to establish that
his sentence is illegal, we conclude that the State's
motion is well-taken. Accordingly, we affirm the summary
dismissal of the motion.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Criminal
Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court
of Criminal Appeals
L. Vick, Clifton, Tennessee, pro se.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Renee
W. Turner, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich,
District Attorney General; and Leslie Byrd, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of
E. Glenn, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which
Camille R. McMullen and J. Ross Dyer, JJ., joined.
E. GLENN, JUDGE
Appellant was convicted of one count of especially aggravated
kidnapping, two counts of aggravated kidnapping, and one
count of sexual battery and was sentenced as a Range II,
multiple offender to an effective forty-year sentence.
State v. Jasper L. Vick, No. W2005-00467-CCA-R3-CD,
2006 WL 722173, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2006). On
direct appeal, his convictions were affirmed, but this Court
remanded to the trial court to determine whether the elements
of his conviction in another state constituted a Class C
felony in Tennessee. Id. at *11.
remand, the trial court again sentenced the Appellant as a
Range II offender, and the Appellant appealed. This Court
determined that the Appellant should have been sentenced as a
Range I offender. State v. Vick, 242 S.W.3d 792, 796
(Tenn. Crim. App. 2007). On remand, he received a total
effective twenty-six year sentence. The Appellant sought
post-conviction relief but was unsuccessful. See Jasper
Lee Vick v. State, No. W2012-01477-CCA-R3-PC, 2013 WL
2446280 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 4, 2013).
August 15, 2017, the Appellant filed a pro se motion to
correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of
Criminal Procedure 36.1, contending that his sentences were
illegal because his indictments were not signed by the court
clerk. The trial court denied his motion, and this Court
affirmed. State v. Jasper Vick, No.
W2017-02164-CCA-R3-CD, 2018 WL 2406011, at *2 (Tenn. Crim.
App. May 2, 2018). The Appellant then filed a second motion
to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that he did not
receive his applicable jail credits. That motion was denied
and this Court again affirmed. State v. Jasper Lee
Vick, No. W2018-00823-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 328417, at *2
(Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 23, 2019).
Appellant thereafter filed a third Rule 36.1 motion in the
trial court, asserting that his sentences were illegal.
Although the motion is file-stamped, the date is not legible.
The motion contains the same arguments presented in his
previously denied motion. The State responded to the motion,
asserting the claims presented were previously determined.
The trial court agreed and entered an order denying relief on
August 9, 2018. In particular, the court found that "the
[m]otion now pending before the court is the same [m]otion
previously ruled on by Division 8 of the Shelby County
Criminal Court and affirmed by the appellate court."
response to the State's motion to affirm pursuant to Rule
20, the Appellant references a "second" motion to
correct an illegal sentence but does not indicate the date
the second motion was allegedly filed. He attached the
"second" motion to a pleading filed in this Court,
but it is not file stamped and there is no indication it was
ever filed in the trial court. Indeed, as noted above, both
the State and the trial court noted that the pending motion
was identical to the previously determined August 15, 2017
motion. The Appellant acknowledges that the
"second" motion was not included in the appellate
record, and he faults the State for failing to include the
second motion. However, it is incumbent upon the appealing
party to compile a record that accurately conveys what
happened in the trial court with respect to the issues
presented on appeal. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(b). Despite being
aware of this alleged deficiency at the time he received and
reviewed the record, the Appellant took no action to
supplement the record. See Tenn. R. App. P. 24(e).
Although pro se litigants are afforded more leniency than
attorneys, they must comply with the same substantive and
procedural rules as represented parties. See State v.
James John Lewis, No. M2011-00302-CCA-R3-CD, 2011 WL
5573244, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2011). Ultimately,
there is no evidence that the "second" motion was
ever filed or ruled upon by the trial court, and the motion
included in the record advances the same arguments that this
Court previously rejected; thus, the Appellant is not
entitled to relief. See Jasper Vick, 2018 WL
2406011, at *2.
opinion would have no precedential value, the Court of
Criminal Appeals may affirm the judgment or action of the
trial court by memorandum opinion when the judgment is
rendered or the action taken in a proceeding without a jury
and such judgment or action is not a determination of guilt
and the evidence does not preponderate against the finding of
the trial judge. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. We
conclude that this case satisfies the criteria of Rule 20.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the ...