State v. Darnell Gentry

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedApril 23, 1997
Docket02C01-9604-CC-00115
StatusPublished

This text of State v. Darnell Gentry (State v. Darnell Gentry) 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 v. Darnell Gentry, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

JANUARY SESSION, 1997

FILED DARN ELL G ENT RY, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9604-CC-00115 ) April 23, 1997 Appe llant, ) ) GIBSON COUNTY Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk V. ) ) HON. DICK JERMAN, JR., JUDGE STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Appellee. ) (DENIAL OF MOTION TO CORRECT)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE CRIMINAL COURT OF GIBSON COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

DARNELL GENTRY, PRO SE CHARLES W. BURSON N.C.S.C. #144927 Attorney General & Reporter 7466 Centennial Blvd. Nashville, TN 37209-1052 CLINT ON J. M ORG AN Assistant Attorney General 450 Jam es Robe rtson Parkw ay Nashville, TN 37243-0493

CLAYBURN PEEPLES District Attorney General 110 South College Street Suite 200 Trenton, TN 38382

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE OPINION

The Appellant appeals as of right from the trial court’s denial of his pro se

Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. The Appellant pled guilty to second degree

murder in the Gibson County Criminal Court. He was sentenced to forty (40)

years as a Stand ard Range I offen der. The Appellant argues that this sentence

is illegal. We affirm the trial court’s denial of the Appellant’s motion.

The Appe llant ha s previo usly presented a petition for post-conviction relief

to the trial c ourt, w hich w as de nied. H e uns ucce ssfully a ppea led this denia l to

our court. Darne ll Gentry v. S tate, No. 02C 01-930 4-CC -00052 , Gibson Coun ty

(Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, filed Jun. 29, 1994). The issue in the case sub

judice was a rgued in the A ppella nt’s po st-con viction a ppea l. This court held that

Appe llant’s sentence was not an illegal sentence. Our supreme court denied the

Appellant’s application to appeal this decision on October 3, 1994.

When an issue is determined in a prior appeal in the same case, the

decision becomes the law of the case, precluding the issue’s relitigation, so long

as the prior de cision is no t clearly erron eous. State v. Delk , 692 S.W.2d 431, 438

(Tenn. C rim. App. 198 5).

We agree w ith the prior h olding of th is court. Th is court sta ted:

In his final issue, appellant contends that his sentence of 40 years is an illegal sentence because it is outside the range of punishment for a Range I offender convicted of a Class A felony. The presen t case is sim ilar to that of State v. Terry, 755 S.W.2d 854 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988), in which the defendant was senten ced to

-2- 10 years a s a Ra nge I o ffende r for kidn appin g. At that time, a Range I offender could rece ive 2 to 6 years for the offense of kidnapping. This Cou rt held that the 10-year sentence, which was within th e pos sible statutory penalty for kidnapping was n ot illega l. W e further held that any irregularity as to classification or release eligibility was waived by a knowing and voluntary plea of guilty. Terry, 755 S.W.2d at 855. In the presen t case , appe llant en tered in to a ple a barg ain agreement for a 40-year sentence as a Range I offender. Second- degree murder is a Class A offense and the possible range of punishment is 15 to 60 years. T.C .A. § 40-35-111(b)(1). Range I for a Class A offense is 15 to 25 years. T.C.A. § 40-35-112(a)(1). As in Terry, the se ntenc e app ellant re ceived is not illeg al, but rather, falls within the permissible statutory range of punishm ent. Furthermore, any irregularity as to classification was waived by appellan t’s guilty plea. T his issue is without m erit.

Gentry, No. 02C01-9304-CC-00052, slip. op. at 6 -7. Th is cour t’s prior decision

is not clearly erroneous as it is supported by prior court decisions.

Therefore, this issue is without m erit. We affirm the judgment of the trial

court.

____________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________ JOE B. JONES, PRESIDING JUDGE

___________________________________ PAUL G. SUMMERS, JUDGE

-3-

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

Related

State v. Delk
692 S.W.2d 431 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1985)
State v. Terry
755 S.W.2d 854 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Darnell Gentry, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-darnell-gentry-tenncrimapp-1997.