State of Tennessee v. Yuell Frank Reeves - concurring

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

State of Tennessee v. Yuell Frank Reeves - concurring

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee

DecidedOctober 30, 2015

DocketE2015-00031-CCA-R3-CD

StatusPublished

This text of State of Tennessee v. Yuell Frank Reeves - concurring (State of Tennessee v. Yuell Frank Reeves - 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.

Bluebook

State of Tennessee v. Yuell Frank Reeves - concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. YUELL FRANK REEVES

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 183558, 183785, 183905 Rebecca J. Stern, Judge

No. E2015-00031-CCA-R3-CD – Filed October 30, 2015 _____________________________

ROGER A. PAGE, J., concurring.

I agree with the majority that the summary dismissal in case number 183558 (May 1990 offense) should be affirmed. Viewing appellant’s motion in the light most favorable to him, I also agree with the majority that appellant has presented a colorable Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 claim with respect to case numbers 183785 and 183905 (the June/July 1990 offenses) due to the trial court’s concurrent, rather than statutorily-mandated consecutive, sentence alignment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-111(b) (mandating consecutive sentence alignment when a defendant commits a felony while the defendant is released on bail and the defendant is convicted of both offenses).

While I agree with most of the reasoning employed by the majority and with the final result reached by the majority, I disagree with the majority’s reasoning that if appellant’s sentences for the June/July offenses have expired, Rule 36.1 fails to provide appellant an avenue of relief. Rule 36.1 contains no provision denying a defendant relief if the challenged sentence has expired. In fact, the plain language of Rule 36.1 states that a defendant “may, at any time, seek the correction of an illegal sentence by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the trial court in which the judgment of conviction was entered. (emphasis added); see also State v. Sean Blake, No. W2014-00856-CCA- R3-CO, 2015 WL 112801, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 8, 2015) (quoting Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(a)).

-1- I concur with the majority that the trial court’s judgment in case number 183558 (May 1990 offense) should be affirmed, and I concur that the trial court’s summary dismissal in case numbers 183785 and 183905 (June/July 1990 offenses) should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

_________________________________ ROGER A. PAGE, JUDGE

-2-

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

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. YUELL FRANK REEVES

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 183558, 183785, 183905 Rebecca J. Stern, Judge

No. E2015-00031-CCA-R3-CD – Filed October 30, 2015 _____________________________

ROGER A. PAGE, J., concurring.

I agree with the majority that the summary dismissal in case number 183558 (May 1990 offense) should be affirmed. Viewing appellant’s motion in the light most favorable to him, I also agree with the majority that appellant has presented a colorable Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 claim with respect to case numbers 183785 and 183905 (the June/July 1990 offenses) due to the trial court’s concurrent, rather than statutorily-mandated consecutive, sentence alignment. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-20-111(b) (mandating consecutive sentence alignment when a defendant commits a felony while the defendant is released on bail and the defendant is convicted of both offenses).

While I agree with most of the reasoning employed by the majority and with the final result reached by the majority, I disagree with the majority’s reasoning that if appellant’s sentences for the June/July offenses have expired, Rule 36.1 fails to provide appellant an avenue of relief. Rule 36.1 contains no provision denying a defendant relief if the challenged sentence has expired. In fact, the plain language of Rule 36.1 states that a defendant “may, at any time, seek the correction of an illegal sentence by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the trial court in which the judgment of conviction was entered. (emphasis added); see also State v. Sean Blake, No. W2014-00856-CCA- R3-CO, 2015 WL 112801, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 8, 2015) (quoting Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(a)).

-1- I concur with the majority that the trial court’s judgment in case number 183558 (May 1990 offense) should be affirmed, and I concur that the trial court’s summary dismissal in case numbers 183785 and 183905 (June/July 1990 offenses) should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

_________________________________ ROGER A. PAGE, JUDGE

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Tennessee v. Yuell Frank Reeves - concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-yuell-frank-reeves-concurring-tenncrimapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack