State of Tennessee v. Ronald Bennett - concurring
This text of State of Tennessee v. Ronald Bennett - concurring (State of Tennessee v. Ronald Bennett - concurring) 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs October 14, 2015
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RONALD BENNETT Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County Nos. 182619, 182621, 182672, 182674, 182676, 182678, 182680, 182682, 182683, 182684, 182685, 182686 Rebecca J. Stern, Judge
No. E2015-00510-CCA-R3-CD – Filed December 14, 2015
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion in this case but write separately to pose the question: How may the term “at any time” mean one thing in the text of Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 and yet mean an entirely different thing in the text of Rule 36.1? Compare State v. Adrian R. Brown, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, No. E2014-00673-SC-R11-CD, slip op. at 12-13 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015) (construing the term “at any time” in Rule 36.1 and holding that a Rule 36.1 motion may not be used to attack an expired sentence) with State v. James D. Wooden, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___, No. E2014-01069-SC-R11-CD, slip op. at 11 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015) (referencing the use in Rule 36 of the term “at any time” with respect to the correction of clerical errors). In the present case, the court utilizes Rule 36 to correct errors in judgments that imposed sentences which have expired.
JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Bennett - concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-ronald-bennett-concurring-tenncrimapp-2015.