IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs August 16, 2016 at Knoxville

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES RAY BARTLETT

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lincoln County

Nos. 009-89, 285-90, 286-90, S0800007 Forest A. Durand, Jr., Judge

No. M2016-00217-CCA-R3-CD – Filed August 26, 2016

The defendant, James Ray Bartlett, appeals the dismissal of his motion, filed pursuant to 

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, to correct what he believes to be an illegal 

sentence. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred by denying his 

motion on the grounds that his sentence had expired. Because Rule 36.1 cannot avail the 

defendant of meaningful relief, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which NORMA 

MCGEE OGLE and D. KELLY THOMAS, JR., JJ., joined.

M. Wesley Hall, IV, Unionville, Tennessee, for the appellant, James Ray Bartlett.

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

Attorney General; Robert J. Carter, District Attorney General; and Ann L. Filer, Assistant 

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

OPINION

This case has quite a convoluted history. It appears that the defendant, in 

1989, pleaded guilty in case number 009-89 to aggravated assault in Lincoln County in 

exchange for a two-year sentence. At some point, the defendant was placed on probation, 

and in 1990, the defendant was extradited from Alabama to Lincoln County for, inter 

alia, violating his probation in case number 009-89. The defendant escaped from custody 

in June of 1990. On November 2, 1990, the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of 

aggravated burglary in Moore County in case numbers 717-90 and 718-90 and received 

concurrent four-year sentences. Two weeks later, the defendant pleaded guilty to four 

counts of felony theft in Lincoln County in case numbers 283-90, 284-90, 285-90, and 

286-90. The defendant was sentenced to four years‟ incarceration on each of the four 
-2-

convictions, to be served consecutively to one another and to the four-year sentence in 

Moore County and to be served concurrently to the two-year sentence in case number 09-

89, for an effective sentence of 20 years. At some point thereafter, the defendant was 

convicted in Lincoln County in case number S0800007 of five counts of aggravated 

burglary, four counts of felony theft, one count of felony vandalism, one count of 

misdemeanor theft, and one count of misdemeanor vandalism. On October 21, 2008, the 

defendant received an effective sentence of 30 years‟ incarceration as a Range III, 

persistent offender.

On July 13, 2015, the defendant challenged, via Tennessee Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36.1, the concurrent alignment of his sentence in case number 009-89 

with his sentences in cases 283-90 through 286-90. The defendant posited that, because 

the felony thefts were committed during the time period in which he had escaped 

custody, his sentences for those crimes must be served consecutively by law and that the 

agreement to run the sentences concurrently with the sentence in case 009-89 resulted in 

an illegal sentence. The defendant sought to vacate the 1990 plea agreement and amend 

the plea agreement in case number S0800007 because the sentence in that case had been 

improperly enhanced by the 1990 convictions.

The trial court conducted a hearing on November 17, 2015, and shortly 

thereafter issued a written order denying the defendant‟s motion, concluding that the 

defendant‟s 1990 sentences had expired and thus were not justiciable under Rule 36.1.

In this appeal, the defendant reiterates his claim of entitlement to Rule 36.1 

relief on grounds that his 1990 sentences were illegal due to concurrent alignment and 

that his 2008 sentence was thus illegal due to improper enhancement.

Rule 36.1 provides the defendant and the State an avenue to “seek the 

correction of an illegal sentence,” defined as a sentence “that is not authorized by the 

applicable statutes or that directly contravenes an applicable statute.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 

36.1; see also State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 594-95 (Tenn. 2015) (holding that “the 

definition of „illegal sentence‟ in Rule 36.1 is coextensive with, and not broader than, the 

definition of the term in the habeas corpus context”). To avoid summary denial of an 

illegal sentence claim brought under Rule 36.1, a defendant must “state with particularity 

the factual allegations,” Wooden, 478 S.W.3d at 594, establishing “a colorable claim that 

the sentence is illegal,” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(b). “[F]or purposes of Rule 36.1 . . . 

„colorable claim‟ means a claim that, if taken as true and viewed in a light most favorable 

to the moving party, would entitle the moving party to relief under Rule 36.1.” Wooden,

478 S.W.3d at 593. The determination whether a Rule 36.1 “motion states a colorable 

claim for correction of an illegal sentence under Rule 36.1 is a question of law, to which 
-3-

de novo review applies.” Id. at 589 (citing Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 255 

(Tenn. 2007)).

Recently, our supreme court addressed the issue of whether Rule 36.1 relief 

extends to the correction of expired illegal sentences. State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 

205 (Tenn. 2015). The high court held that Rule 36.1 “does not expand the scope of 

relief and does not authorize the correction of expired illegal sentences” and, accordingly, 

“a Rule 36.1 motion may be summarily dismissed for failure to state a colorable claim if 

the alleged illegal sentence had expired.” Id. at 211.

In the instant case, the trial court determined, and the defendant agreed, that 

the defendant‟s sentence had fully expired by the time he filed his Rule 36.1 motion. The 

record before us appears to support the finding that the defendant‟s sentence had expired, 

but because the defendant was clearly out of prison for some period of time in order to 

commit the crimes for which he was convicted in 2008 and because the record does not 

indicate the length of that time period, we cannot say with certainty that the record 

supports a finding that the 20-year effective sentence had expired. In any event, the onus 

was on the defendant to show that his sentence had not yet expired. See generally 

Passarella v. State, 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994); see also State v. 

Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tenn. 1993) (holding that appellant bears the burden of 

preparing adequate record on appeal). Finally, the defendant‟s claim that his sentence in 

case number S0800007 had been improperly enhanced by the allegedly illegal 1990 

sentence is not a cognizable claim for relief under Rule 36.1.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

_________________________________ 

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE