State of Tennessee v. Darrell E. Nance

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJanuary 31, 2025
DocketE2024-01113-CCA-R3-CD
StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. Darrell E. Nance (State of Tennessee v. Darrell E. Nance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Tennessee v. Darrell E. Nance, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

01/31/2025 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 29, 2025

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DARRELL E. NANCE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamblen County No. 08CR050 John F. Dugger, Jr., Judge

No. E2024-01113-CCA-R3-CD

The pro se Defendant, Darrell E. Nance, 1 appeals from the trial court’s summary dismissal of his Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence. Specifically, the Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred in concluding that his sentence of life imprisonment was legal, (2) the State’s motion to dismiss his motion was untimely, and (3) the trial court erred in declining to appoint counsel and hold a hearing on his motion. Because we conclude that the Defendant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed and that the interest of justice does not require waiver of the timely filing requirement, we dismiss the appeal.

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

KYLE A. HIXSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., and TOM GREENHOLTZ, JJ., joined.

Darrell E. Nance, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Richard D. Douglas, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Dan E. Armstrong, District Attorney General; and Kimberly L. Morrison, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1 Throughout the record, the Defendant spells his name alternatively as “Darrell” and “Darryl.” For clarity, we adopt the spelling used in his notice of appeal and on his judgment forms. We intend no disrespect. On January 21, 2008, the Defendant was charged with the first degree murder and especially aggravated kidnapping of the victim, Willie Morgan. Following the appointment of counsel, the Defendant pleaded guilty to both charges on March 30, 2010.

At the Defendant’s guilty plea submission hearing, the trial court merged the Defendant’s especially aggravated kidnapping conviction with his first degree murder conviction. After imposing a sentence of life imprisonment, the trial court explained to the Defendant that he would serve at least fifty-one years of his sentence before he was eligible for release. The Defendant stated that he understood this, and the trial court continued, “You’re . . . twenty-four years of age and you’ll be approximately seventy-five years of age . . . before you are eligible for parole[.]” The Defendant again responded that he understood the terms of his sentence.

On December 6, 2010, the Defendant filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief, which he later amended and subsequently withdrew on November 6, 2012. The record does not include copies of the Defendant’s petition for post-conviction relief, the amended petition, or the withdrawal of his petition.

On February 21, 2024, the Defendant filed a “Memorandum i[n] Support of Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence” pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, followed by a “Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence” on February 26, 2024. In these filings, the Defendant argued principally that the State and defense counsel intentionally misled him into pleading guilty because they “promised” he would be eligible for parole. However, because the Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment, he was ineligible for parole. The Defendant argued that his guilty pleas were “completely dependent on parole eligibility” and averred that he “truly believed that he would be eligible for release after service of 60% of 60 years with a minimum of 25 calendar years served.” 2 The Defendant further alleged that neither the State nor defense counsel explained that he would not be eligible for release until he served at least fifty-one years of his life sentence. The

2 The Defendant relies upon Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-501(h)(1) (2024) in support of his argument, which concerns release eligibility for defendants convicted of first degree murder “on or after November 1, 1989, but prior to July 1, 1995.” The record indicates that the Defendant murdered the victim on or about January 19, 2008. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claims are properly analyzed under section 40-35-501(i), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

There shall be no release eligibility for a person committing an offense [of first degree murder], on or after July 1, 1995 . . . The person shall serve one hundred percent (100%) of the sentence imposed by the court less sentence credits earned and retained. However, no sentence credits authorized by § 41-21-236, or any other provision of law, shall operate to reduce the sentence imposed by the court by more than fifteen percent (15%).

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i)(1), (2) (2008) (subsequently amended).

-2- Defendant also argued that defense counsel coerced him into pleading guilty by implying he would be eligible for the death penalty.

The State filed a motion to dismiss the Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence on April 18, 2024. In relevant part, the State argued that the Defendant’s sentence was not illegal because life sentences, though ineligible for parole, may be reduced by fifteen percent based on sentence reduction credits earned by the Defendant. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(i)(1) (2008) (subsequently amended). The State further noted that the Defendant indicated that he understood the terms of his sentence during his guilty plea submission hearing.

On June 18, 2024, the trial court entered an order summarily dismissing the Defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence. In its order, the trial court found that regardless of whether the State or defense counsel failed to explain to the Defendant that he would not become eligible for release until he had served fifty-one years of his sentence, he nevertheless stated under oath that he understood the terms of his sentence during his guilty plea submission hearing. Further, the trial court noted that though the Defendant “claims that he thought the law prior to July 1, 1995, was applicable to him,” the victim was murdered on or about January 19, 2008, more than twelve years later. The trial court thus concluded that the Defendant’s sentence was legal. Further, the trial court found that the Defendant had raised similar arguments in his post-conviction petition regarding defense counsel’s alleged coercion of the Defendant into pleading guilty; accordingly, such arguments were waived when the Defendant withdrew his petition on November 6, 2012. The Defendant filed a notice of appeal on July 26, 2024.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, the Defendant maintains that his sentence was illegal because he was “guaranteed parole eligibility” on two occasions during his guilty plea submission hearing despite the unavailability of a sentence of life with the possibility of parole in the State of Tennessee. He also argues that the State’s motion to dismiss his motion for correction of an illegal sentence was untimely and that the trial court erred in declining to appoint counsel and to hold a hearing on his motion. The State responds that the Defendant’s appeal should be dismissed because his notice of appeal was untimely by eight days.

A notice of appeal must be “filed with the clerk of the appellate court within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment appealed from[.]” Tenn. R. App. P. 4(a).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Rockwell
280 S.W.3d 212 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Tennessee v. Darrell E. Nance, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-darrell-e-nance-tenncrimapp-2025.