IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE 

 AT NASHVILLE 

 Assigned on Briefs October 10, 2023 

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ADAM JANES

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County 

No. 83071 Barry R. Tidwell, Judge 

 No. M2023-00112-CCA-R3-CD 

The Defendant, Adam Janes, appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for a reduction 

of sentence pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. Specifically, the 

Defendant argues that: (1) he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel; (2) he 

entered into his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily; (3) the assistant district attorney 

was prejudiced against him; (4) he was entitled to concurrent sentences; (5) he was not 

given the opportunity of rehabilitation; (6) his sentence was not the least severe measure 

necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence was imposed; and (7) the State 

failed to file a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment. After review, we affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

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

KYLE A. HIXSON, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER 

and JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., JJ., joined. 

Adam Janes, Whiteville, Tennessee, Pro Se. 

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Richard D. Douglas, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General; Jennings H. Jones, District Attorney General; and Allyson Abbott, 

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

OPINION 

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 5, 2017, the Defendant pleaded guilty in case number 76764 to aggravated 

assault. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-102. The Defendant was sentenced to six years 

with the Tennessee Department of Correction suspended to supervised probation. On May 

11/03/2023
- 2 - 

26, 2021, the Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated kidnapping and aggravated 

assault in the present case. See id. §§ 39-12-101, -13-102, -13-304. As part of his guilty 

plea in this case, he agreed to an incarcerative six-year sentence on both counts, ordered to 

run consecutively to each other and to case number 76764. 

The Defendant submitted a pro se “Petition for Relief from Conviction or Sentence” 

on June 26, 2021. Appointed counsel filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief 

on August 25, 2021.1 The Defendant did not include the petition or its amendment in the 

record on appeal. 

On September 9, 2022, the Defendant filed a pro se “Petition to Modify Sentence,” 

arguing that he was not seeking post-conviction relief and wanted only to address his 

sentence. A hearing ensued on September 28, 2022. At the hearing, defense counsel 

explained that the Defendant did not intend to file a post-conviction petition but rather was 

challenging the consecutive nature of his sentences. The trial court questioned the 

Defendant, and the Defendant affirmed that he was not seeking post-conviction relief and 

wanted to move forward with a motion for a reduction of sentence pursuant to Tennessee 

Rule of Criminal Procedure 35. The trial court allowed the Defendant to move forward 

with his Rule 35 claim and gave the Defendant thirty days to supplement his pleadings as 

to why his sentence should be modified. 

On October 10, 2022, the Defendant filed a pro se “Motion to Reconsider Sentence.” 

In his motion, the Defendant argued that: (1) the State failed to file a notice of intent to 

seek enhanced punishment; (2) “[t]wo or more offenses shall be joined in the same 

indictment, presentment or information with each offense consolidated to Rule 13”; (3) he 

was a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing; (4) the assistance district attorney was 

hostile and prejudiced against him because of his having previously prosecuted the 

Defendant; and (5) he received the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 

On November 28, 2022, the trial court denied the Defendant’s motion for sentence 

reduction without a hearing. The trial court found that the Defendant waived his postconviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by affirmatively abandoning his 

petition at the hearing. See Serrano v. State, 133 S.W.3d 599, 604 (Tenn. 2004). It further 

found that the Defendant failed to show post-sentencing information or developments 

warranting a sentence reduction in the interest of justice because the Defendant’s claims 

were known to him at the time he pleaded guilty. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35, Advisory 

 

1

 While there is no petition or amendment in the record, we glean this information from the trial 

court’s final order. 
- 3 - 

Comm’n Cmts.; see State v. Patterson, 564 S.W.3d 423, 432-34 (Tenn. 2018). This appeal 

followed. 

II. ANALYSIS

 

The Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a reduction 

in sentence and requests that his sentences be aligned concurrently. In his brief, the 

Defendant asserts multiple, repetitive arguments supporting his request. We have 

reordered and condensed these arguments for clarity. The Defendant contends that: (1) he 

received ineffective assistance of trial counsel by counsel’s failure to adequately 

investigate, prepare, and communicate with the Defendant about the case and plea 

agreement, and the Defendant suffered prejudice as a result; (2) the Defendant entered into 

his guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily; (3) the assistant district attorney was 

“hostile” and prejudiced against the Defendant; (4) the Defendant did not meet the statutory 

criteria for consecutive sentences pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-

115(b); (5) the Defendant was not given the opportunity of rehabilitation pursuant to Code 

section 40-35-102(5); (6) the Defendant’s sentence was not the least severe measure 

necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence was imposed; and (7) the State 

failed to file a notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment pursuant to Code section 40-

35-202(a). 

The State responds that the Defendant waived his claims of ineffective assistance of 

trial counsel and entering into a guilty plea unknowingly and involuntarily. In the 

alternative, it asserts that the Defendant failed to present proof for these contentions and 

that alleged constitutional violations are not proper subjects of a Rule 35 appeal. Regarding 

the Defendant’s remaining claims, the State argues that the Defendant failed to show postsentence developments or evidence of changes in circumstances sufficient to warrant a 

sentence reduction in the interest of justice. 

Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure allows a defendant to seek a reduction in 

sentence with the trial court within 120 days after a sentence is imposed. Tenn. R. Crim. 

P. 35(a). This 120-day time limit cannot be extended or tolled. Id. “The intent of [Rule 

35] is to allow modification only in circumstances where an alteration of the sentence may 

be proper in the interests of justice.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35, Advisory Comm’n Cmts.; see

State v. Hodges, 815 S.W.2d 151, 154 (Tenn. 1991). When a defendant enters into a plea 

agreement with the State in exchange for a specific sentence, the defendant must show that 

post-sentencing information or developments have arisen to warrant a reduction in sentence 

in the interest of justice. State v. McDonald, 893 S.W.2d 945, 948 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

1994); Patterson, 564 S.W.3d at 434 (holding that the McDonald standard remains 
- 4 - 

applicable in cases where a defendant seeks to reduce an agreed-to sentence). The trial 

court may deny a Rule 35 motion without a hearing. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35(c). This court 

reviews a trial court’s denial of a Rule 35 motion for an abuse of discretion. Patterson, 

564 S.W.3d at 429. 

Here, the Defendant alleges two constitutional violations—that he received the 

ineffective assistance of counsel and that he entered into his guilty plea unknowingly and 

involuntarily. Relative to the Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel contention, the 

Defendant affirmed to the trial court at the hearing that he was not pursuing post-conviction 

relief and wanted only to proceed under a Rule 35 motion for a reduction of sentence. As 

such, he has waived any argument of ineffective assistance of counsel. See Serrano, 133 

S.W.3d at 604 (holding that a petitioner may waive the right to post-conviction relief). 

Furthermore, a Rule 35 motion is not the proper procedure for alleging constitutional 

violations, such as ineffective assistance of counsel or an involuntary guilty plea. See State 

v. Harmon, No. No. E2016-00551-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 2839744, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. July 3, 2017); State v. Beaudion, No. M2001-01560-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 

31819132, at *2-3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Dec. 13, 2002). Accordingly, these arguments are 

not a proper basis for a Rule 35 appeal. 

The Defendant’s remaining contentions for a reduction in sentence are also without 

merit. While we note that the transcript of the guilty plea hearing is absent from the record, 

the guilty plea acceptance form clearly outlines the agreed-upon sentence reflected in the 

judgments. The plea agreement specifically stated that the Defendant’s sentences were to 

run consecutively to each other and consecutively to case number 76764. The Defendant 

was aware of these circumstances at the time he accepted the guilty plea. As such, his 

allegations that the assistant district attorney was hostile and prejudiced against him, that 

he was entitled to concurrent sentences, that he was not given an opportunity for 

rehabilitation, and that his sentence was not the least severe measure available are not postsentencing developments. McDonald, 893 S.W.2d at 948; Patterson, 564 S.W.3d at 434. 

Moreover, regarding the Defendant’s argument that the State failed to file a notice of intent 

to seek enhanced punishment, a valid guilty plea waives any irregularity as to offender 

classification. Hicks v. State, 945 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tenn. 1997); State v. Mahler, 735 

S.W.2d 226, 228 (Tenn. 1987). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion denying the Defendant’s motion for a reduction of sentence. 
- 5 - 

III. CONCLUSION

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

of the trial court. 

______________________________ 

KYLE A. HIXSON, JUDGE