IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY SINQUARIUS MARKS

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2014-D-3182 Mark J. Fishburn, Judge

No. M2017-02013-CCA-R3-CD

_____________________________

The Appellant, Anthony Sinquarius Marks, is appealing the trial court’s denial of his 

motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State has filed a motion asking this Court to 

affirm pursuant to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. Said motion is hereby granted.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Order of the Trial Court Affirmed Pursuant 

to Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20

THOMAS T. WOODALL, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER, J. and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J. joined.

Anthony Sinquarius Marks, pro se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Sophia Lee, Senior Counsel, for 

the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In September 2016, the Appellant was convicted of fabricating evidence and 

aggravated perjury. He was sentenced to twelve years for each crime, to be served 

concurrently with each other but consecutively to prior sentences from two other cases. 

He did not appeal. In August 2017, the Appellant filed a motion to correct an alleged 

illegal sentence. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1. The trial court summarily denied the 

motion. The Appellant timely filed notice of appeal. Following the filing of the record 

on appeal and the Appellant’s brief, the State filed a motion to affirm the ruling of the 

trial court pursuant to Rule 20. For the reasons stated below, said motion is hereby 

granted.

08/06/2018
2

The Appellant alleges his two twelve-year sentences are illegal because he was not 

properly awarded pretrial jail credits. Rule 36.1 permits a defendant to seek correction of 

an unexpired illegal sentence at any time. See State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 211 

(Tenn. 2015). “[A]n illegal sentence is one that is not authorized by the applicable 

statutes or that directly contravenes an applicable statute.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(a). 

Our supreme court has interpreted the meaning of “illegal sentence” as defined in Rule 

36.1 and concluded the definition “is coextensive, and not broader than, the definition of 

the term in the habeas corpus context.” State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 594-95 (Tenn. 

2015). The court then reviewed the three categories of sentencing errors: clerical errors

(those arising from a clerical mistake in the judgment sheet), appealable errors (those for 

which the Sentencing Act specifically provides a right of direct appeal) and fatal errors

(those so profound as to render a sentence illegal and void). Id. Commenting on 

appealable errors, the court stated that those “generally involve attacks on the correctness 

of the methodology by which a trial court imposed sentence.” Id. In contrast, fatal errors

include “sentences imposed pursuant to an inapplicable statutory scheme, sentences 

designating release eligibility dates where early release is statutorily prohibited, sentences 

that are ordered to be served concurrently where statutorily required to be served 

consecutively, and sentences not authorized by any statute for the offenses.” Id. The 

court held that only fatal errors render sentences illegal. Id. A trial court may summarily 

dismiss a Rule 36.1 motion if it does not state a colorable claim for relief. Tenn. R. Crim. 

P. 36.1(b)(2).

The trial court did not err in summarily dismissing the Appellant’s motion. As the 

State aptly observes, the Supreme Court has specifically held “a trial court’s failure to 

award pretrial jail credits does not render the sentence illegal and is insufficient, 

therefore, to establish a colorable claim for relief under Rule 36.1.” Brown, 479 S.W.3d 

at 213.

Accordingly, the ruling of the trial court is hereby affirmed pursuant to Court of 

Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

Judge Thomas T. Woodall