State v. Darnell Gentry ( 1997 )


Menu:
  •        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-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02C01-9604-CC-00115

Filed Date: 4/23/1997

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014