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. Davis

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

July 9, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
ROGER CLAYTON DAVIS

          Assigned on Briefs February 26, 2019

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for McMinn County Nos. 87-262 through -268 Andrew M. Freiberg, Judge

         The Appellant, Roger Clayton Davis, filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, and the trial court summarily denied the motion. On appeal, the Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously imposed consecutive sentencing and that the sentences imposed by the trial court are illegal because the trial court enhanced his sentences based upon facts not determined by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

          Roger Clayton Davis, Pikeville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Garrett D. Ward, Assistant Attorney General; Stephen Davis Crump, District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Norma McGee Ogle, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., J., joined. James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., not participating.

          OPINION

          NORMA MCGEE OGLE, JUDGE

         I. Factual Background

         In 1988, the Appellant was convicted of five counts of rape and one count of aggravated kidnapping. State v. Davis, 825 S.W.2d 109, 110 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Originally, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences that totaled life plus one hundred years. Id. On appeal, this court remanded for resentencing. Id. (citing State v. Roger Clayton Davis, No. 170, 1989 WL 112748, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Sept. 29, 1989)). The trial court resentenced the Appellant as a Range II, multiple offender to consecutive sentences of forty years for the aggravated kidnapping conviction and twenty years for each rape conviction for a total effective sentence of one hundred and forty years. Id. On appeal, the Appellant again challenged the sentences imposed by the trial court, including the imposition of consecutive sentencing. Id. This court held that the Appellant should have been sentenced as a Range I, standard offender and reduced the individual sentences to twenty-five years for the aggravated kidnapping conviction and twelve years for each rape conviction. Id. at 113. However, this court upheld the imposition of consecutive sentencing, resulting in a total effective sentence of eighty-five years. Id.

         Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was summarily dismissed because the issues raised had been waived or previously determined. Roger Clayton Davis v. State, No. 03C01-9308-CR-00265, 1993 WL 523654, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Dec. 16, 1993). The Petitioner filed a second petition for post-conviction relief in which he rehashed his previous claims and raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Roger Clayton Davis v. State, No. 03C01-9409-CR-00323, 1995 WL 509422, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Aug. 29, 1995). The post-conviction court summarily dismissed the petition. Id. On appeal, this court agreed that the Appellant could not relitigate the claims raised in the first petition but held that the post-conviction court should have allowed him to present proof regarding his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. After a hearing, the post-conviction court denied relief, which this court affirmed on appeal. Roger Clayton Davis v. State, No. 03C01-9902-CR-00076, 2000 WL 21307, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. at Knoxville, Jan. 14, 2000).

         Subsequently, on May 16, 2018, the Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. In the motion, the Appellant alleged that the trial court imposed consecutive sentencing based upon abduction and rape charges that were pending in Monroe County and later were dismissed and on abduction and sexual assault charges in Florida that resulted in a conviction for false imprisonment. The Appellant further alleged that the trial court illegally enhanced his sentences based upon facts not determined by a jury in violation of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and State v. Gomez, 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007).

         The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, finding that although the claims raised by the Appellant "were potentially appealable[, ] . . . [t]here is nothing 'illegal about [the] Petitioner's sentence at bar." Therefore, the trial court held that the Appellant had not presented a colorable claim for relief under Rule 36.1. Moreover, the trial court noted that the Appellant had previously challenged the trial court's imposition of consecutive sentencing, but this court upheld the trial court's determinations. On appeal, the Appellant challenges the trial court's summary dismissal of his motion.

         II. ...


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.