Find Laws Find Lawyers Free Legal Forms USA State Laws
Laws-info.com » Cases » Tennessee » Court of Criminal Appeals » 1999 » State vs. Calvin Otis Tankesly
State vs. Calvin Otis Tankesly
State: Tennessee
Court: Court of Appeals
Docket No: M2000-00135-CCA-R3-PC
Case Date: 12/15/1999
Plaintiff: State
Defendant: Calvin Otis Tankesly
Preview:IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CALVIN OTIS TANKESLY
Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sumner County No. 9235 Jane Wheatcraft, Judge

No. M2000-00135-CCA-R3-PC - Decided June 9, 2000

Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief alleging his conviction is void. He entered a best interest plea of guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, the petitioner was sentenced to five years as a Range I standard offender. He now claims this sentence is illegal and void. The trial court found the judgment was not void and dismissed the petition. Upon a review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Tenn. R. App. Proc. 3; Judgment of the Criminal Court Affirmed. RILEY, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WADE, P. J. and OGLE , J. joined. Calvin Otis Tankesly, Pikeville, Tennessee, Pro Se. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Clinton J. Morgan, Assistant Attorney General; and Lawrence Ray Whitley, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION FACTS Petitioner was indicted in Sumner County on two counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of rape of a child. On August 6, 1996, he entered a best interest plea of guilty to attempted aggravated sexual battery, a Class C felony. Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, the petitioner was sentenced to five years as a Range I standard offender. He is currently incarcerated in Bledsoe County. On December 15, 1999, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in Sumner County, alleging the judgment of the trial court is facially void because it proscribes a sentence which is contrary to state statutory mandates. Petitioner claims Tennessee law does not allow him to receive the sentence proscribed by the trial court; thus, his sentence is void. The trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the judgment is not void, and the petitioner is not being held after his term of imprisonment expired.

STANDARD OF REVIEW Article I,
Download tankelsyCO.pdf

Tennessee Law

Tennessee State Laws
Tennessee Tax
Tennessee Labor Laws

Comments

Tips