IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs July 16, 2014

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOHN ROBERT QUINTON JACKSON 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County

Nos. 40801258, 40801260, 40801261, 40901207 Michael R. Jones, Judge

No. M2013-02172-CCA-R3-CD - Filed October 15, 2014

The record in this matter is very sparse. Much of our understanding of its history comes

from the decision of this court in the defendant’s direct appeal, State v. John Robert Q.

Jackson, No. M2012-00511-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 791621 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 4,

2013). As best we can understand, the defendant, John Robert Quinton Jackson, pled guilty

in February 2009 to five counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of automobile burglary,

one count of theft over $10,000, and one count of theft over $1000, receiving an effective

sentence of six years in community corrections. In September 2009, he was served with a

violation warrant and subsequentlypled guiltyto an additional count of aggravated burglary,

receiving a four-year sentence in community corrections, to be served concurrently with the

six-year community corrections sentence reinstated by the court. Later, he was served with

another violation warrant, based upon his participation in a home invasion and aggravated

robbery. Pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, he filed a motion for

correction of an illegal sentence, which the trial court dismissed. He appeals that dismissal. 

Based upon our review, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of his motion. 

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

ALAN E. GLENN,J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS T. WOODALL, P.J.,

and NORMA MCGEE OGLE, J., joined.

John Robert Quinton Jackson, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Tracy L. Alcock, Assistant Attorney

General; John Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney General; and J. Lee Willoughby,

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION

FACTS

In the defendant’s direct appeal following his resentencing, this court set out the

sentencing imposed by the trial court:

The trial court revoked [the defendant’s] community corrections

sentence and re-sentenced him to concurrent three-year sentences for each

count in case number 40801258, concurrent four-year sentences for each

count in case number 40801260, an effective four-year sentence in case

number 40801261, and four years in case number 40901207. In considering

consecutive sentencing, the trial court found that [the defendant] had an

extensive criminal history. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(2) (2010). Thus,

the court ordered that [the defendant] serve his sentences in case numbers

40801258, 40801260, and 40801261 consecutively to each other. He ordered

that [the defendant]serve his sentence in case number 40901207 concurrently

with his sentence in case number 40801260, for an effective eleven-year

sentence in the Tennessee Department of Correction. 

Id. at *2.

ANALYSIS

According to the defendant’s appellate brief, his two issues on appeal are whether the

trial court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing by mistakenly concluding that he had

an extensive criminal history and that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his motion. We will

consider these claims.

As to the first, that the trial court erred in resentencing by concluding that the

defendant had an extensive criminal history, this court, in the defendant’s direct appeal,

concluded that the evidence supported that determination:

[The defendant] also claims that the trial court erred byfinding that [the

defendant] is an offender whose record of criminal activity is extensive and

by ordering that he serve his sentences consecutively. Without citation to any

authority, [the defendant] posits that his convictions “were from a short

duration of time which constituted the same or similar acts, which does not

warrant the finding of a professional criminal or having had an extensive

criminal history.” We disagree and note that the record shows that [the

-2-
defendant] has an extensive history of criminal activity. [The defendant’s]

history of criminal activity includes at least nine different felony convictions

in addition to some misdemeanor convictions. Although some of the activity

includes criminal charges that have not yet resulted in convictions, convictions

do not solely justify the finding of an extensive criminal history. See State v.

Angela Marie Jewell Larzelere, No. 01C01-9506-CC-00187, 1996 WL 12150

(Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 11, 1996) (citing State v. Cummings, 868 S.W.2d

661, 667 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992)) (noting that this court has “previously held

that prior convictions are not necessary to support a finding of an extensive

criminal history warranting an imposition of consecutive sentences”). 

Id. at *4.

As before, the defendant’s claims are without merit that his criminal history is not

“extensive.” Actually, it is. As for the trial court’s conclusion that it was without

jurisdiction to consider the defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal sentence, we

disagree. While the trial court did have jurisdiction to hear the claim, it was bound by the

earlier determination of this court that the record supported the sentences imposed following

the revocation of community corrections. See State v. Carter, 114 S.W.3d 895, 902 (Tenn.

2003) (“[W]hen an initial appeal results in a remand to the trial court, the decision of the

appellate court establishes the law of the case, which must be followed upon remand.”). 

This is precisely what the trial court did.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the following authorities and reasoning, we affirmthe trial court’s denial

of the motion to correct the sentence. 

_________________________________

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE

-3-