IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MIKO T. BURL

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

No. 99-01973 Glenn Ivy Wright, Judge

No. W2017-01911-CCA-R3-CD

_____________________________

The Appellant, Miko T. Burl, 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

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ALAN E.

GLENN and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, JJ. joined.

Miko T. Burl, pro se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Zachary T. Hinkle, Assistant 

Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 2000, the Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault, aggravated burglary 

and especially aggravated robbery. The trial court sentenced the Appellant as a standard 

Range I offender to twenty-five years for the especially aggravated robbery conviction 

and four years each for the other two convictions, all to be served concurrently. On direct 

appeal, this Court reversed the aggravated assault conviction but affirmed the other two 

convictions. State v. Miko T. Burl, No. W2000-02074-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1483207 

(Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 28, 2002). The denial of the Appellant’s first motion to correct an 

illegal sentence was affirmed on appeal by this Court on February 22, 2017. State v. 

Miko Burl, No. W2016-00670-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App. Feb. 22, 2017). In that

motion, the Appellant argued his sentences were illegal because the trial court misapplied 

enhancement factors. This Court disagreed, noting that the sentences imposed were 

06/04/2018
2

within the appropriate statutory ranges. See Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-403(b); 39-14-

403(b); 40-35-112; 40-35-501. On June 5, 2017, the Appellant filed his second motion to 

correct an illegal sentence. The Appellant again complained the trial court erroneously 

sentenced him to the maximum sentence within the applicable range for the especially 

aggravated robbery conviction. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion because 

the issue was previously decided. This appeal ensued. 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.

As we previously stated:

Rule 36.1 of Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure allows a petitioner to 

“seek the correction of an illegal sentence by filing a motion to correct an 

illegal sentence in the trial court in which the judgment of conviction was 

entered.” Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(a). The rule defines an “illegal sentence” 

as “one that is not authorized by the applicable statutes or that directly 

contravenes an applicable statute.” Id. Only fatal errors are capable of

rendering a sentence illegal. Cantrell v. Easterling, 346 S.W.3d 445, 452 

(Tenn. 2011). A trial court’s misapplication of enhancing and mitigating 

factors, however, is considered an appealable error that can only be 

“addressed on direct appeal and not in a post-conviction or habeas corpus 

proceeding.” Id. at 451; State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 595-96 (Tenn. 

2015). “‘[A]ttacks on the correctness of the methodology by which a trial

court imposed [a] sentence’ will not rise to the level of an illegal sentence.”

State v. Joseph B. Thompson, No. E2015-01963-CCA-R3-CD, 2016 WL 

2770178, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 10, 2016) (quoting Wooden, 478 

S.W.3d at 595).

W2016-00670-CCA-R3-CD at 2. The Appellant’s current complaint about being 

sentenced to the maximum sentence within the applicable range falls squarely within the 

category of appealable errors and is thus not actionable in a Rule 36.1 motion. 

Accordingly, this Court’s analysis in the previous appeal controls the outcome herein. 

The trial court did not err in summarily dismissing the motion. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 

36.1(b)(2).

The Appellant also raises for the first time in his brief on appeal a claim that his 

sentence violates the principles announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 

(2000) and Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). Issues raised for the first time 

on appeal are considered waived. See State v. Johnson, 970 S.W.2d 500, 508 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 1996). Regardless, the Appellant would not otherwise be entitled to relief on 
3

that claim. See State v. Rafael Antonio Bush, No. M2016-01537-CCA-R3-CD, 2017 WL 

2376825 at*7 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 1, 2017).

The ruling of the trial court is hereby affirmed in accordance with Court of 

Criminal Appeals Rule 20.

_______________________________________

JOHN EVERTT WILLIAMS, JUDGE