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. Carlton

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville

August 14, 2019

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
ANTON CARLTON

          Assigned on Briefs April 16, 2019

          Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. F-55484A Royce Taylor, Judge.

         The Defendant, Anton Carlton, appeals the summary denial of his "Motion for An Amendment of the Judgment to Correct a Clerical Error." He argues (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that the corrected judgment of conviction entered on April 9, 2012, did not contain an oversight or omission, and (2) the corrected judgments of conviction entered on October 22, 2018, resulted in a material breach of his negotiated plea agreement. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but remand the case for entry of corrected judgment forms in Counts 6, 7, and 8 and for entry of an amended order of dismissal, wherein Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, and 10 are dismissed.

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

          Anton Carlton, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.

          Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; David H. Findley, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Jennings H. Jones, District Attorney General; and J. Paul Newman, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

          Camille R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which James Curwood Witt, Jr., and D. Kelly Thomas, Jr., JJ., joined.

          OPINION

          CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE.

         The Defendant's charges in this case stem from his participation in a home invasion involving the victim, Ben Nelson, as well as the victim's wife and children. The Defendant was indicted by the Rutherford County Grand Jury for five counts of especially aggravated kidnapping (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), two counts of aggravated robbery (Counts 6 and 7), one count of aggravated burglary (Count 8), and two counts of theft (Counts 9 and 10). See Anton Carlton v. Easterling, No. W2012-00798-CCA-R3-HC, 2012 WL 6474542, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 2012) (affirming denial of habeas corpus relief from first petition for writ of habeas corpus).

         Thereafter, the Defendant entered into a written plea agreement, which set out the terms of the agreement in the following grid:

Case/Count:

55484 CT - I

55484 CT 6-7

55484 CT 8

Conviction Offense:

Esp Agg Kidnapping

Agg Robbery

Agg Burg

Sentence imposed:

25 yrs @ 100%

10 yrs @ 30% x2

5 yrs @ 30%

Range; Offender; Classification; R.E.D.;

Rg I

Rg I

Rg I

Concurrent/Consecutive

Consecutive Ct I

Consecutive to Ct 6-7

Place of Confinement

TDOC

TDOC

TDOC

Fine:

Ø

Ø

         In addition, the following terms were written immediately below this grid on the plea agreement:

Dismiss Ct 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10-No fines-50 yr sentence 25 yrs @ 100% A, felony-(2) 10 yr. @ 30%-5 yrs @ 30% All consecutive to each other & to ct. I.

         At the January 24, 2005 plea submission hearing, the State announced that the Defendant was entering a guilty plea to especially aggravated kidnapping in Count 2, rather than in Count 1 as outlined in the written plea agreement. However, in all other respects, the State followed the terms of the plea agreement, asserting that all the counts would be served consecutively to one another, for an effective sentence of fifty years. In particular, the State made the following announcement at the plea submission hearing regarding the terms of the Defendant's plea agreement:

Subject to Your Honor's approval[, ] he'd be entering a plea to especially aggravated kidnapping, count two. Be a 25[-]year sentence at 100 percent to serve. He'd plead guilty as well to count six, aggravated robbery. That would be a ten[-]year sentence consecutive to count two. And that would be at 30 percent. Also plead guilty to count seven, aggravated robbery, ten years at 30 percent to serve consecutive to counts two and six. And then count eight, aggravated burglary. A five[-]year sentence to serve at 30 percent consecutive to counts two, six and seven of this indictment. The remaining counts subject to Your Honor's approval would be dismissed. And he has executed a plea agreement.

         When the court asked, "What's the total?" the State replied, "25 years at 100 percent followed by a culmination of 25 [years] at thirty [percent] consecutive."

         During the plea submission hearing, defense counsel told the court that the Defendant was "concern[ed]" because his co-defendant in this case received an effective sentence of twenty-five years rather than an effective sentence of fifty years. The court noted that while the co-defendant had to serve twenty-five years, the Defendant was going to have to serve approximately thirty years before becoming eligible for parole. The trial court then conducted a full plea colloquy, and the Defendant stated that he had no questions about the terms of his plea agreement and acknowledged that he was pleading guilty to one count of especially aggravated kidnapping, two counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated burglary.

         At the conclusion of this hearing, the trial court accepted the Defendant's guilty pleas and imposed the following sentences:

Sir, first of all[, ] I'm going to find you guilty of especially aggravated kidnapping. Sentence you to 25 years in the state penitentiary as a 100 percent offender. . . . Consecutive to that I'm going to find you guilty of aggravated robbery. Sentence you to ten years in the state penitentiary as a range one, 30 percent offender. . . . And that will run consecutive to count two[, ] which is the 25 years at 100 percent. Next, sir, I'm going to find you guilty of [the second count of] aggravated robbery. Sentence you to ten years in the state penitentiary as a range one 30 percent offender. It will run consecutive to count two of the indictment and count six of the indictment. . . . Next, sir, I'm going to find you guilty of aggravated burglary. Sentence you to five years in the state penitentiary as a range one 30 percent offender. It will run consecutive to count two of the indictment, count six of the ...

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.