FILED

April 30, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

MARCH SESSION, 1998

STANLEY HARVILLE a/k/a, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9703-CC-00104

STANLEY SALAHUDDIN, )

)

Appellant, )

)

) HICKMAN COUNTY

VS. )

) HON. CORNELIA A. CLARK

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) JUDGE

)

Appellee. ) (Petition to Correct Judgment)

ON APPEAL FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE

CIRCUIT COURT OF HICKMAN COUNTY

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

GREGORY D. SMITH JOHN KNOX WALKUP

One Public Square, Ste. 321 Attorney General and Reporter

Clarksville, TN 37040

ELLEN H. POLLACK

Assistant Attorney General

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243-0490

JOE D. BAUGH, JR.

District Attorney General

RONALD DAVIS

Assistant District Attorney General

P.O. Box 937

Franklin, TN 37065-0937

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE
-2-

OPINION

The Petitioner, Stanley Harville a/k/a Stanley Salahuddin, appeals the trial

court’s denial of his petition to correct his sentence without a hearing. His sole

issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing his petition.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The Petitioner was convicted on February 23, 1987, of assault with intent

to commit murder in the first degree. His conviction was affirmed by this Court

in an opinion filed on August 17, 1989. State v. Robert Williams and Stanley

Harville a/k/a Stanley Salahuddin, C.C.A. No. 88-125-III, Hickm an County (Tenn.

Crim. App., Nashville, Aug. 17, 1989), perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1989). The

Petitioner filed his first petition for post-conviction relief on September 12, 1991.

A second petition was filed on December 20, 1991. The trial court summarily

dismissed the petition and this Court affirmed the decision on November 18,

1992. King T.K. Salahuddin a/k/a Stanley Harville v. State, C.C.A. No. 01C01-

9205-CC-00160, Hickman County (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Nov. 18, 1992),

perm. to appeal denied (Tenn. 1993). The Petitioner subsequently filed a

petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was also denied by the trial court and

affirmed by this Court. State of Tennessee, ex rel. King Salahuddin, a/k/a

Stanley Harville v. Fred Raney, Warden, C.C.A. No. 02C01-9405-CC-00085,

Lauderdale County (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Oct. 19, 1994).

In his latest challenge, the Petitioner filed a petition to correct his sentence.

He argues that the sentencing court originally set a sentence of twenty years to
-3-

run concurrently with the sentence he was already serving in the Department of

Correction. The Petitioner was present at the sentencing hearing. The sentence

and the corresponding order were changed that same day to reflect a life

sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence the Petitioner was serving.

He argued that the trial court impermissibly altered his sentence when he was not

present and asked that the sentence be changed to reflect the original twentyyear concurrent sentence. The trial court considered the petition, reviewed the

audio transcript of the Petitioner’s sentencing hearing and determined that the

sentencing court had made an error and had corrected the error to reflect a

sentence for life to run consecutively to the prior sentence. The trial court denied

the petition.

 In this appeal, the Petitioner includes copies of two judgment forms

completed on the day he was sentenced, a letter indicating that there had been

some confusion, and excerpts from the sentencing hearing. The Petitioner raises

his claim based on two rules of criminal procedure. Rule 35(b) of the Tennessee

Rules of Criminal Procedure provides for the correction or reduction of a

sentence.

Reduction of Sentence. The trial court may reduce a sentence upon

application filed within 120 days after the date the sentence is imposed or

probation is revoked. No extensions shall be allowed on the time

limitation. No other actions shall toll the running of this time limitation. A

motion for reduction of sentence under this rule may be denied by the trial

judge without a hearing. If the application is denied, the defendant may

appeal but the defendant shall not be entitled to release on bond unless

the defendant is already under bond. If the sentence is modified, the state

may appeal as otherwise provided by law. A modification can only be as

to any sentence the court could have originally imposed.

The Petitioner argues that the trial court should consider his petition to

reduce his sentence despite the 120 day limit to file the claim because he did not
1

 The Petitioner argues that he learned of the more lenient sentence only recently, but the 

record belies this contention. The opinion on the Petitioner’s direct appeal clearly states that the

sentence imposed was a consecutive life sentence. Thus, the Petitioner was “on notice” of the

discrepancy as early as August 17, 1989.

-4-

discover the discrepancy until much later. The Petitioner does not indicate when

he discovered the alleged error, yet the record reflects he filed his petition on

December 4, 1996. However, the rule specifically states that “no other actions

shall toll the running of this time limitation.” Furthermore, the Petitioner cites no

authority for his “discovery” rule proposition. The Petitioner filed his request far

beyond the 120 days provided for in the rule, thus making him ineligible for a

reduction of his sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b)1

.

The Petitioner also argues that Rule 36 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal

Procedure allows for a correction of the sentence at any time. “Clerical mistakes

in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors in the record arising

from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time and after

such notice, if any, as the court orders.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36. The Petitioner

claims that he should have been provided a hearing to explore why his sentence

was increased.

However, the trial court reviewed the complete transcript of the trial and

sentencing hearing and determined that the trial court made an error and

corrected the judgment to reflect the intended sentence for the Petitioner. In the

order, the trial judge stated: 

The court has had the court reporter review the original audio tapes of

petitioner’s trial and sentencing. The transcript page cited by the petitioner

simply contains an error. At the tim e of sentencing the trial court did find

that the sentences were to run consecutively rather than concurrently.

Therefore, the amended judgment order entered by the trial court at that

time is correct. There is no other change that needs to be made.
-5-

Petitioner is currently serving a term of life imprisonment consecutive to

the prison sentence he was serving at the time the underlying crime was

committed.

The trial judge concluded that the Petitioner’s allegations merited no further

action and denied the petition without a hearing. The findings of a trial judge on

factual issues have the weight of a jury verdict, and these findings will not be set

aside unless the evidence preponderates against them. State v. W hite, 939

S.W.2d 113, 116 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State v. Tate, 615 S.W.2d 161, 162

(Tenn. Crim. App. 1981). From the evidence before us on appeal, we cannot

conclude that the evidence preponderates against the trial court’s findings. The

record does not support the Petitioner’s claim for relief.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

____________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JOSEPH M. TIPTON, JUDGE

___________________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE