IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs January 5, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRUCE LEE ROBINSON

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County

No. 6484 Joseph H. Walker, III, Judge

No. W2015-01183-CCA-R3-CD - Filed March 4, 2016

The defendant, Bruce Lee Robinson, pled guilty in 1999 to first degree felony murder and 

was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2015, he filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, claiming that his sentence was illegal. The trial court 

disagreed, dismissing the motion after concluding that it did not present a colorable 

claim. We agree and affirm the dismissal of the motion, pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the 

Court of Criminal Appeals.

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

Pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals

ALAN E. GLENN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT,

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

Bruce Lee Robinson, Only, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; and Clarence E. Lutz, Senior 

Counsel, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

 As we understand this action, the defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion claims that his 

sentence of life imprisonment for his plea of guilty in 1999 to first degree felony murder 

is illegal because, in sentencing, the court did not specify him to a specific term of years. 

Further, he complains that his trial counsel failed to advise him that he could receive a 

sentence of twenty-five years for committing first degree murder. Additionally, he 

argues that his attorney, the State, and the trial court “were at all times aware that it was 

error to try [him] in absence of sufficient prior felonies in which to serve as an enhanced 

factor.” (emphasis in original). The trial court dismissed the motion because the life 
2

sentence, which was imposed on the defendant, “means life,” and not a specific term. As 

we will explain, we agree that the defendant failed to present a colorable claim.

The various pleadings filed by the defendant during the pendency of this matter 

reveal that he believes first degree murder, the offense to which he pled guilty, is a Class 

A felony and, thus, requires a sentence of a specific term of years. He is mistaken. 

Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-117(a)(1) provides that “[f]or the purposes of 

classification of other offenses, first degree murder is one (1) class above Class A.”

Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-202(c) sets out the only three possible penalties

for first degree murder as death, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or 

life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. According to the judgment form, the 

defendant was sentenced to life with parole. Thus, we conclude, as did the trial court,

that the defendant failed to present a colorable claim and, therefore, we affirm the 

dismissal of his motion. See State v. James D. Wooden, --- S.W.3d ---, No. E2014-

01069-SC-R11-CD, 2015 WL 7748034, at *6-7 (Tenn. Dec. 2, 2015).

When an opinion would have no precedential value, the Court of Criminal 

Appeals may affirm the judgment or action of the trial court by memorandum opinion 

when the judgment is rendered or the action taken in a proceeding without a jury and 

such judgment or action is not a determination of guilt, and the evidence does not 

preponderate against the finding of the trial judge. See Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 20. We 

conclude that this case satisfies the criteria of Rule 20. The judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals.

_________________________________ 

ALAN E. GLENN, JUDGE