State v. Darnell Gentry ( 1997 )

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-