IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 17, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JESSIE R. BAILEY

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

Nos. 62093, 65697 G. Scott Green, Judge

No. E2015-01323-CCA-R3-CD – Filed April 13, 2016

_____________________________

The Defendant, Jessie R. Bailey, entered a guilty plea to possession of 0.5 gram or more 

of cocaine with the intent to sell. The Defendant was sentenced to serve eight years. In a 

separate case, the Defendant pleaded guilty to facilitation of second degree murder and 

was sentenced to serve eight years concurrently to the sentence in the cocaine possession 

case. Approximately sixteen years after the judgments were filed, the Defendant filed 

motions pursuant to Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 requesting that the trial 

court correct illegal sentences. The trial court summarily denied the motions. We affirm 

the judgment of the trial court.

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

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., delivered the opinion of the court, in which THOMAS T.

WOODALL, P.J., and ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., joined.

Jessie R. Bailey, Manchester, Kentucky, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Nicholas W. Spangler, Assistant 

Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of 

Tennessee.

OPINION

The judgment for the Defendant’s cocaine possession conviction reflects that the 

date of the offense was May 27, 1996, and that the Defendant pleaded guilty and the 

judgment was filed on June 22, 1999. The judgment for the facilitation of second degree 

murder conviction reflects that the date of the offense was May 18, 1996, and that the 

Defendant pleaded guilty and the judgment was filed on June 7, 1999. 
-2-

On May 18, 2015, the Defendant filed motions to correct illegal sentences 

pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, which provides:

Either the defendant or the state may, at any time, seek the correction of an 

illegal sentence by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the trial 

court in which the judgment of conviction was entered. For purposes of 

this rule, an illegal sentence is one that is not authorized by the applicable 

statutes or that directly contravenes an applicable statute.1

The Defendant alleged that his sentences were illegal because Tennessee Code Annotated 

section 40-20-111(b) required that they be imposed consecutively because the Defendant 

had been on bail for the cocaine possession charge when he was arrested for the homicide 

charge. Code section 40-20-111(b) (2012) provides:

In any case in which a defendant commits a felony while the defendant was 

released on bail . . . and the defendant is convicted of both offenses, the 

trial judge shall not have discretion as to whether the sentences shall run 

concurrently or cumulative, but shall order that the sentences be served 

cumulatively.

He also alleged that he was arrested on May 27, 1996, for the cocaine possession charge, 

that he posted bond and was released on June 4, 1996, and that while he was still on bond 

for the cocaine possession charge, he was arrested on June 15, 1998, for the homicide 

charge.

The trial court summarily denied the motions, finding that although the Defendant 

was on bail for the cocaine possession charge when he was arrested for the homicide 

charge, the date of the homicide offense preceded the Defendant’s arrest for the cocaine 

possession charge. Therefore, the court concluded that the Defendant did not commit the 

homicide offense while he was on bond for the cocaine possession offense and that the 

concurrent sentences were legal.

On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his 

motions. Resolution of his appeal is controlled by the recent opinion of our supreme 

court in State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 209-11 (Tenn. 2015). The Brown court said 

that Rule 36.1 did not extend to the correction of illegal sentences which have expired. 

Id. In the present case, the Defendant’s sentences have expired. Summary dismissal,

without inquiry into his Rule 36.1 claim that the sentences were imposed illegally, is 

 

1 We note that an amendment to Rule 36.1 will become effective July 1, 2016. 
-3-

appropriate. Although we rely upon different grounds than those relied upon by the trial 

court, we affirm the court’s summary dismissal of the motions.

In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed.

____________________________________

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE