State of Tennessee v. Tobias Johnson

Citation: Not availableDocket: W2017-01644-CCA-R3-CD

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; May 9, 2018; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tobias Johnson appeals the Shelby County Criminal Court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. He argues that his life sentence with parole eligibility at thirty percent violates Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-501(i)(1) and (i)(2)(A). Johnson contends that, although he received a life sentence per his plea agreement, the judgment contains a clerical error indicating 'standard 30' instead of 'violent 100' for release eligibility. His concurrent sentences for rape and incest have expired. The court finds no error in the trial court's summary dismissal of his motion for failing to state a colorable claim but remands for correction of the clerical error. The procedural history notes that Johnson was indicted on multiple serious charges from 2003 to 2005, ultimately entering a negotiated plea agreement in 2007 that resulted in a life sentence for murder and lesser sentences for other charges, all served concurrently.

The petitioner contended that his convictions for rape were illegal, arguing that rape is not a lesser-included offense of child rape, and thus the eight-year sentences and their thirty-percent release eligibility were unlawful. The trial court dismissed his motion on July 10, 2017, determining that the petitioner had received a legal life sentence as per his plea agreement and that his sentences for rape had expired, negating his claim for relief. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal on July 26, 2017, but it was returned to him on August 8, 2017, with instructions to file directly with the appellate clerk. His notice was ultimately stamped filed by the appellate court on August 17, 2017.

The petitioner argued that his sentence was illegal due to a conflict between his plea agreement, which stipulated 'Life with Parole,' and the statutory provisions regarding parole eligibility. He claimed a colorable basis for relief, requesting counsel and an evidentiary hearing. The State countered that the appeal was untimely and that the petitioner failed to present a colorable claim.

Upon review, it was concluded that the appeal was timely, as the petitioner filed within the twenty-day extension allowed under Tennessee's transitional provisions after incorrectly filing initially. The court stated that determining whether a motion presents a colorable claim for an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 is a legal question reviewed de novo. Under Rule 36.1, an illegal sentence is one not authorized by law or that contradicts applicable statutes. If a motion presents a colorable claim, the court must appoint counsel if the petitioner is indigent and hold a hearing unless waived. A 'colorable claim' is defined as one that, if accepted as true, would entitle the petitioner to relief. The court noted that only fatal errors in sentencing render a sentence illegal, distinguishing them from clerical or appealable errors.

Appealable errors are defined as those specifically allowed for direct appeal under the Sentencing Act, focusing on trial court methodology in sentencing. Fatal errors render sentences illegal or void and include sentences imposed under incorrect legal frameworks or those that violate statutory requirements. The petitioner asserts that under Tennessee law, a first-degree murder conviction mandates serving 100% of the sentence, with possible credits not exceeding fifteen percent. The plea agreement erroneously stated "life with parole," whereas valid sentences for first-degree murder are limited to life, life without parole, or death. Although this misstatement does not invalidate the sentence, it is considered a clerical error. The case is remanded for correction of the judgment, specifically addressing Count 1 of case 04-00221. Sentences for rape and incest have expired, and Rule 36.1 does not permit correction of expired sentences, leading to the trial court's denial of the petitioner’s motion being deemed correct. The court affirms the trial court's judgment but orders correction of the conviction record.