State v. Walls

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Schelfe

    No. M2018-01604-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 29, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    Moreover, to the extent that the Petitioner is now attempting to collaterally attack his guilty plea, he is also not entitled to relief. See State v. Ronnie Walls, No. M2018-00903-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 2183774, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 21, 2019) (holding that Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure is not the proper vehicle to collaterally attack a guilty plea)(citing Carpenter v. State, 136 S.W.3d 608, 609 (Tenn. 2004)); see also State v. Hoover, 215 S.W.3d 776, 779 (Tenn. 2007)(holding that the overall punishment range authorized for the plea offense is what controls the determination of whether an agreed sentence is legal); Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997)(holding that "a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives any irregularity as to offender classification or release eligibility"). Accordingly, we agree with the trial court and conclude that the Petitioner has not stated a colorable claim for relief and, as such, is not entitled to relief under Rule 36.1.

  2. State v. Colligan

    No. M2018-01443-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Jul. 12, 2019)

    Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(e)(4); State v. Samuels, 44 S.W.3d 489, 494 (Tenn. 2001). Although "[a] formal sentencing hearing or revocation hearing . . . is not required when a defendant concedes that he violated the terms of the community corrections sentence and elects to accept, knowingly and voluntarily, an increased sentence by agreement with the State[,]" State v. Ronnie Walls, No. M2018-00903-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 2183774, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 21, 2019), the question of whether the hearing held by the trial court constituted an appropriate resentencing hearing or whether Defendant knowingly and voluntarily accepted an increased sentence is not before this court. Defendant never appealed the trial court's October 4, 2017, ruling which resulted in the first amended judgment.