In Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2D 706 (Tenn. 1997), The Supreme Court Held That ( 1998 )

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE FILED
STATE OF TENNESSEE, )
) December 11, 1998
C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9808-CC-00354
Appellee, ) (No. 9209 Below)
) Cecil W. Crowson
VS. ) MAURY COUNTY Appellate Court Clerk
) The Hon. Jim T. Hamilton
HOUSTON GRADY CHAPMAN, )
) (Denial of Motion to Correct Sentence)
Appellant. )
) AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion requesting that the
judgment in the above-styled cause be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Tennessee Court of
Criminal Appeals Rules. Upon reviewing the record, the appellant’s brief, and the state’s
motion, we find that it is an appropriate matter for affirmance under Rule 20.
From the record, it appears that on August 21, 1996, the appellant entered
a “best interest” plea to two counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of
aggravated burglary. As part of the agreement, he was sentenced to ten years for each
count of attempted second-degree murder, to be served consecutively, and to three years
for aggravated burglary. Subsequently, on March 30, 1998, the petitioner filed a motion
to correct illegal sentence. Counsel was appointed to represent the appellant, and a
hearing was held on August 14, 1998. On the same date, the trial court entered an order
denying the motion.
On appeal, the appellant contends that his consecutive sentences are illegal
because the trial court failed to inquire or make findings of fact as to the criteria supporting
consecutive sentences and because the facts do not support the imposition of consecutive
sentences.
In Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706 (Tenn. 1997), the Supreme Court held that
“a knowing and voluntary guilty plea waives any irregularity as to offender classification or
release eligibility.” Id. at 709. Previously, in Patrick Williams v. State, No. 01C01-9506-
CR-00190 (Tenn. Crim. App., filed May 9, 1996), this Court had applied the same
reasoning to the imposition of consecutive sentencing pursuant to a plea agreement,
holding that consecutive sentencing is subject to plea negotiation. The same applies to
the case now before the Court. Accordingly, the Court holds that the appellant’s
consecutive sentences are not illegal.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm the
judgment of the trial court under Rule 20, Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rules, is
granted, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. It appearing that the petitioner is
indigent, costs of these proceedings are taxed to the state.
_____________________________
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
_____________________________
JOHN H. PEAY, JUDGE
_____________________________
DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE