IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM D. LENNOX, JR.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County

Nos. 14709, 14776 Walter C. Kurtz, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2017-00564-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

The Defendant, William D. Lennox, Jr., appeals from the Sevier County Circuit Court’s 

order denying his motion to correct illegal sentences. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1. The

Defendant’s counsel has filed a motion to withdraw pursuant to Rule 22 of the Rules of 

the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals. We conclude that counsel’s motion is welltaken and, in accordance with Rule 22(F), affirm the trial court’s judgments pursuant to 

Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.

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

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

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES 

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

Jessica S. Sisk, Newport, Tennessee, for the appellant, William D. Lennox, Jr.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Nicholas White Spangler, 

Assistant Attorney General; James B. Dunn, District Attorney General; and Tim Norris, 

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

OPINION

On June 20, 2012, the Defendant pleaded guilty, in eleven separate indictments, to 

three counts of evading arrest, one count of disorderly conduct, nine counts of passing a 

worthless check valued at $500 or less, two counts of theft of property valued at $500 or 

less, two counts of theft of property valued at $1,000 or more, one count of sale of less 

than .5 gram of cocaine, and one count of aggravated burglary. In exchange for the guilty 

pleas, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to a total effective sentence of thirteen

years’ incarceration.

01/26/2018
- 2 -

Sometime prior to June 2016, the Defendant filed a pro se motion to amend the 

judgments in case numbers 14709 and 14776.1 On June 13, 2016, the trial court 

appointed counsel to assist the Defendant. On February 17, 2017, the Defendant, through 

counsel, withdrew the motion to amend judgments and filed a motion to correct illegal 

sentences pursuant to Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure. The 

motion alleged that the Defendant’s sentences were illegal for failure of the trial court to 

award pretrial jail credits as contemplated by the Defendant’s plea agreement. Following 

a hearing, the trial court denied the Defendant’s motion, ruling that the failure to award 

pretrial jail credits was not a cognizable claim for 36.1 relief. The Defendant, through 

counsel, filed a timely notice of appeal.

Tennessee Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1 states, in relevant part, that

(a) (1) Either the defendant or the state may seek to correct an illegal 

sentence by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence in the trial court in 

which the judgment of conviction was entered. . . . . 

(2) For purposes of this rule, an illegal sentence is one that is not authorized 

by the applicable statutes or that directly contravenes an applicable statute.

Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(a)(1) and (2). A defendant is entitled to a hearing and the 

appointment of counsel if the motion states a colorable claim for relief. Id. at 36.1(b).

Further, the trial court is required to file an order denying the motion if it determines that 

the sentence is not illegal. Id. at 36.1(c)(1).

Whether a defendant states a colorable claim is a question of law and is reviewed 

de novo. State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 588 (Tenn. 2015). A colorable claim is 

defined as “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.” Id. at 593. A 

motion filed pursuant to Rule 36.1 “must state with particularity the factual allegations on 

which the claim for relief from an illegal sentence is based.” Id. at 594. A trial court 

“may consult the record of the proceeding from which the allegedly illegal sentence 

emanated” when determining whether a motion states a colorable claim for relief. Id.

Only fatal errors result in an illegal sentence and “are so profound as to render the 

sentence illegal and void.” Id. at 595; see State v. Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d 445, 452 (Tenn. 

2011). Fatal errors include sentences imposed pursuant to an inapplicable statutory 

scheme, sentences that designate release eligibility dates when early release is prohibited, 

 

1

The pro se pleading is not contained in the record on appeal. 
- 3 -

sentences that are ordered to be served concurrently when consecutive service is required, 

and sentences that are not authorized by statute. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d at 595. Errors 

which are merely appealable, however, do not render a sentence illegal and include 

“those errors for which the Sentencing Act specially provides a right of direct appeal.”

Id.; see Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d at 449. Appealable errors are “claims akin to ... 

challenge[s] to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction” and “involve 

attacks on the correctness of the methodology by which a trial court imposed sentence.” 

Wooden, 478 S.W.3d at 595; see Cantrell, 346 S.W.2d at 450-52.

The Defendant alleged that his sentences were illegal for the trial court’s failure to 

award pretrial jail credits. The supreme court has held that a trial court’s failure to award 

pretrial jail credits does not render a sentence illegal and, therefore, an allegation of 

sentence illegality for failure to award pretrial jail credits is insufficient to warrant Rule 

36.1 relief. State v. Brown, 479 S.W.3d 200, 212-13 (Tenn. 2015). 

Upon a full examination of the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err 

by denying the Defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion to correct illegal sentences. We affirm the 

judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Tennessee Court of 

Criminal Appeals. The appellant shall have sixty days from the date of entry of this 

opinion within which to file a pro se application for permission to appeal to the 

Tennessee Supreme Court. Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. R. 22(F). By separate order 

accompanying this opinion, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________________

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE