IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 18, 2021

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MICHELLE BENNINGTON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County

No. 294428 Thomas C. Greenholtz, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2020-00025-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

Defendant, Michelle Bennington, filed a pro se motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36 to correct an alleged clerical error in a July 22, 2019 probation 

revocation order. The motion sought entry of a corrected order providing 827 days of postjudgment jail credit. The trial court determined that there was no clerical error in the 

revocation order and denied the motion. However, the trial court determined that there was 

a clerical error in the May 23, 2016 judgments of conviction and entered corrected 

judgments providing two additional days of pretrial jail credit. Finding no error, we affirm.

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

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES 

CURWOOD WITT, JR., and ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY,JR., JJ., joined.

Michelle Bennington, Henning, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Assistant 

Attorney General; Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General; and Kristen Spires, Assistant 

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

OPINION

Procedural History

On May 23, 2016, Defendant pled guilty to trafficking for commercial sex act

(Count One), contributing to the delinquency of a minor (Count Three), and prostitution

(Count Four). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Defendant to eight

02/26/2021
- 2 -

years in Count One and eleven months and twenty-nine days in both Counts Three and 

Four. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently and were suspended to 

supervised probation. The judgments provided pretrial jail credit from December 18, 2014,

to May 23, 2016. 

On July 11, 2017, the trial court issued a capias based on a probation violation report

claiming that Defendant tested positive for cocaine, amphetamine, buprenorphine, and 

methamphetamine. Defendant conceded the violation, and on August 16, 2017, the court 

partially revoked Defendant’s probation through August 26, 2017. The revocation order 

provided that Defendant would be supervised out of Knox County and would receive jail 

credit from July 24 to August 16, 2017.

On January 23, 2018, the trial court issued another capias based on a probation 

violation report claiming that Defendant tested positive for methamphetamine on 

December 13, 2017. By letter dated June 2, 2019, Defendant notified the court that she 

was incarcerated in the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) on a sentence out of 

Knox County. Defendant was transported from prison to Hamilton County on July 19, 

2019. On July 22, 2019, Defendant conceded the violation, and the trial court fully revoked 

probation and ordered Defendant to serve her original sentence. The revocation order 

provided jail credit from July 19 to July 22, 2019.

On September 19, 2019, Defendant filed a “Motion to Correct Clerical Error on 

Probation Order” (“the Motion”), claiming that the trial court’s July 22, 2019 revocation 

order failed to award all jail credit to which she was entitled. She claimed that, on 

December 2, 2016, she pled guilty in Knox County and was sentenced to six years to be 

served concurrently with her effective eight-year Hamilton County sentence. Defendant 

moved the court to issue a corrected revocation order to provide 827 days post-judgment 

jail credit. Specifically, Defendant sought post-judgment jail credit on her Hamilton 

County sentence for the following: (1) 206 days during which she was incarcerated in Knox 

County awaiting trial; (2) 37 days during which she was incarcerated in Knox County after 

she was sentenced on the Knox County charges; (3) 556 days beginning with the full 

revocation of her Knox County probation on January 12, 2018, through entry of the July 

22, 2019 revocation order in Hamilton County during which time she was incarcerated in 

TDOC; and (4) 28 days that were credited in the Hamilton County August 16, 2017 

probation order.

The trial court denied the Motion by order entered on November 18, 2019, finding:

Neither the omission of credit for confinement in jail in Knox County, nor 

the omission of credit for confinement in prison in West Tennessee, 

constitutes a clerical error in the judgments of this court, because the record 
- 3 -

does not reflect that either confinement was a post-arrest, pre-plea or postarrest, pre-revocation confinement arising out of the offenses in this case. 

The court found that there was no clerical error in the July 22, 2019 revocation order but

found that there was a clerical error in the May 23, 2016 judgments of conviction and that 

Defendant was entitled to jail credit beginning on December 16 not December 18, 2014. 

The court entered corrected judgments. 

Defendant filed an untimely Notice of Appeal on January 6, 2020. The State’s 

motion to dismiss the appeal was denied by this court because Defendant attempted to 

timely file a Notice of Appeal on December 18, 2019, but the notice was returned to 

Defendant by the appellate clerk for additional information. 

Analysis

On appeal, Defendant claims that the trial court erred by failing to award applicable 

jail credits in its July 22, 2019 revocation order. The State argues that the trial court 

properly denied the Motion. We agree with the State.

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-23-101 provides, in pertinent part:

The trial court shall, at the time the sentence is imposed and the 

defendant is committed to jail, the workhouse or the state penitentiary for 

imprisonment, render the judgment of the court so as to allow the defendant 

credit on the sentence for any period of time for which the defendant was 

committed and held in the city jail or juvenile court detention prior to waiver 

of juvenile court jurisdiction, or county jail or workhouse, pending 

arraignment and trial. The defendant shall also receive credit on the sentence 

for the time served in the jail, workhouse or penitentiary subsequent to any 

conviction arising out of the original offense for which the defendant was 

tried.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-23-101(c) (2019).

The first sentence of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-23-101(c) requires trial 

courts to award pretrial jail credit. The failure to award pretrial jail credits is a clerical 

error. State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 212 (Tenn. 2015). A trial court may correct clerical 

errors in a judgment at any time. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36. 

The second sentence of section 40-23-101(c) entitles a defendant to post-judgment

credit for any time served in confinement after conviction if the confinement arises out of 
- 4 -

the original offense for which the defendant was convicted. “Notwithstanding any other 

law to the contrary, [TDOC] is responsible for calculating the sentence expiration date and 

the release eligibility date of any felony offender sentenced to the department and any 

felony offender sentenced to confinement in a local jail or workhouse for one (1) or more 

years.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-501(r) (2019); see State v. Patterson, 564 S.W.3d 423, 

434 (Tenn. 2018). There is “no law to the contrary” applicable to this case. 

TDOC, not the trial court, was responsible for calculating post-judgment jail credit 

on Defendant’s Hamilton County sentence and the concurrent Knox County sentence. See

Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457, 464 (Tenn. 2012). As the trial court explained in its 

thorough, five-page order denying the Motion, if Defendant “believes that TDOC 

overlook[ed] an award of jail credit or otherwise miscalculate[d] the felony sentence, her 

remedy lies under the Tennessee Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, Tenn. Code 

Ann. §[§] 4-5-101 [to 325].” 

Conclusion

The trial court correctly determined that there was no clerical error in the July 22, 

2019 revocation order. The trial court properly corrected a clerical error in the judgments 

of conviction to provide two additional days of pretrial jail credit. We affirm the trial 

court’s order denying the Motion and the court’s entry of corrected judgments. 

____________________________________

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE