IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs November 1, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BARRY LAMONT PRICE

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County

No. 91-1046 Roy B. Morgan, Jr., Judge

___________________________________

No. W2016-00896-CCA-R3-CD - Filed January 17, 2017

___________________________________

The Petitioner, Barry Lamont Price, appeals the Circuit Court of Madison County‟s 

summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to Rule 36.1. 

Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the 

Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT 

WILLIAMS AND J. ROSS DYER, JJ., joined.

Joseph T. Howell, Jackson Tennessee, for the appellant, Barry L. Price.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Andrew C. Coulam, Assistant 

Attorney General; James G. (Jerry) Woodall, District Attorney General; and Al Earls, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 25, 1992, the Petitioner was convicted by a jury of attempt to commit 

felony escape, a Class A misdemeanor, and sentenced to 60-days in the county jail. This 

sentence was to be served consecutively to several other cases not at issue to the present 

matter. The Petitioner subsequently filed two motions to correct illegal sentence pursuant 

to Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. In his first motion, which is 

not included in the appellate record, the Petitioner apparently argued the same grounds 

for relief as he did in his second motion. By written order issued on December 2, 2015, 

the trial court denied relief reasoning that, “[t]he charged offense in [the Petitioner‟s] case 

was a Class E felony and the punishment for attempt to commit escape while incarcerated 

for a felony would be a class „A‟ misdemeanor.” It further concluded that the sentence 
imposed was proper; therefore, the Petitioner was not entitled to relief. The Petitioner 

filed a second motion on April 13, 2016, arguing that “[b]ecause the judgment order 

shows that the conviction class as attempt to commit felony escape, [Petitioner] can show 

that the judgment has been misconstrued as a felony by the Federal Courts.” The 

Petitioner claimed that he was convicted of a misdemeanor and entitled to “have the trial 

court correct the error.”

The trial court issued another order on April 18, 2016. After acknowledging that 

the Petitioner had put forth no new arguments or evidence in support of his motion, the 

trial court denied relief and reasoned that the Petitioner‟s complaint that “the federal 

court [was] misconstruing the judgment in setting the sentence for his federal convictions

had no bearing on the legality of the judgment in this case. The [Petitioner] must address 

any complaints or errors committed by the federal court to that court.” It is from this 

order that the Petitioner now appeals. 

In this case, the Petitioner appears to argue that his August 25, 1992 judgment 

misclassified his convicted offense as a felony; therefore, his judgment should be 

corrected of this alleged clerical error pursuant to Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of 

Criminal Procedure to reflect his actual misdemeanor conviction. Rule 36 of the 

Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that the trial court “may at any time 

correct clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record, and errors in 

the record arising from oversight or omission.” However, as pointed out by the State, the

judgment clearly reflects that the Petitioner was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor to 

be served in the county jail. While our review of the judgment shows that a mark is, in 

fact, in the felony box, the box by the misdemeanor clearly has a check mark inside it. 

Therefore, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the motion. The Petitioner is 

not entitled to relief.

When an opinion would have no precedential value, the Court of Criminal 

Appeals may affirm the judgment or action of the trial court by memorandum opinion 

when the judgment is rendered or the action taken in a proceeding without a jury and 

such judgment or action is not a determination of guilt, and the evidence does not 

preponderate against the finding of the trial judge. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. We 

conclude that this case satisfies the criteria of Rule 20. Accordingly, the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal 

Appeals.

____________________________________

CAMILLE R. McMULLEN, JUDGE