Preview:

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROBERT RAY MILLS
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County No. 747-2002 Jane Wheatcraft, Judge

No. M2003-01813-CCA-R3-CD - Filed October 18, 2004

This matter was presented to the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, for this Court to affirm the judgment of the trial court by memorandum opinion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID H. WELLES and JERRY L. SMITH , JJ., joined. Robert Ray Mills, Petros, Tennessee, pro se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Jennifer L. Bledsoe, Assistant Attorney General; and Lawrence Ray Whitley, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. MEMORANDUM OPINION A review of the transcript of the sentencing hearing in this case reveals that Defendant pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor theft, one count of resisting arrest, one count of joyriding, one count of evading arrest involving a risk of death, one count of driving on a canceled, suspended, or revoked license, fourth offense, one count of vandalism over $1,000.00 (Class D felony), and one count of aggravated criminal trespass. Apparently, as part of the plea agreement, Defendant agreed to certain specified sentences, and one sentence to run consecutive to the remaining sentences, for an effective five-year sentence. The sentencing hearing was to determine whether or not Defendant was entitled to receive probation or some other form of alternative sentence rather than full incarceration. The trial court ruled that Defendant must serve the entire five-year sentence by incarceration. The sentencing hearing was held April 15, 2003. The judgments were not made a part of the record by Defendant. Defendant filed a "Motion to Correct/Reduce Sentence" on July 1, 2003. In this motion, Defendant argues that he did not meet any criteria for consecutive sentencing. Furthermore, he complained that the trial court did not state what factors justified a determination

of consecutive sentencing, and that he was eligible for alternative sentencing as provided by law. The relief requested in the motion was for the trial court to modify the sentence imposed, or correct it to "remove" consecutive sentencing or to amend the judgment to reflect a sentence to be served on probation or community corrections. The trial court entered an order denying the motion, without an evidentiary hearing, from which Defendant has filed this appeal. It is obvious from the limited record prepared by Defendant that consecutive sentencing was imposed upon him pursuant to a plea agreement entered into by Defendant, who was represented by counsel at the trial level. Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides as follows: Rule 35. Correction or Reduction of Sentence.

Download MillsRob.pdf

Tennessee Law