IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs April 6, 2021

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RICKEY BENSON

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

Nos. 17-05158, 17-05159 James M. Lammey, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2020-01107-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

In 2020, the Defendant, Rickey Benson, filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 36.1 seeking to correct an illegal sentence. The trial court summarily 

denied the Defendant’s motion for failure to state a colorable claim. On appeal, the 

Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion. After a thorough 

review of the record and applicable authorities, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

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

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOHN EVERETT 

WILLIAMS, P.J., and ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., joined.

Rickey Benson, Memphis, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katharine K. Decker, Assistant 

Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Leslie Byrd, Assistant 

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

OPINION

I. Facts

A Shelby County grand jury indicted the Petitioner for two counts of burglary of a 

building. The scant record in this case does not include judgments or a transcript of the 

disposition of his case. In his brief, however, the Defendant states that, on January 7, 2019, 

he signed a plea agreement for a six-year sentence. 

On June 4, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36.1 to correct his illegal sentence. In the Defendant’s motion, he 

contended that he was taking prescribed medication for mental illness at the time he entered 

04/28/2021
- 2 -

his guilty plea. Due to his use of these medications, the Defendant argued that he should 

be given a chance to withdraw his guilty plea. 

On August 11, 2020, the trial court summarily issued an order denying the 

Defendant’s requested relief. As grounds for the dismissal, the trial court found that the 

Defendant had failed to state a colorable claim for which relief could be granted.

It is from this judgment that the Defendant now appeals. 

II. Analysis

On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it summarily 

dismissed his motion. He asserts that the trial court erred when, at the time of his guilty 

plea, the trial court failed to “certify to the State that [he] was a certified mental patient 

who was consuming prescribed drugs at the time.” He argues that this status “qualified 

[him] to a lesser time on probation and to a mental program to enjoy the privilege of 

supervised release.” The State responds that, because none of the Defendant’s claims 

render his sentence illegal, the trial court properly dismissed his motion. We agree with 

the State.

Rule 36.1 permits a defendant to seek correction of an unexpired illegal sentence.

“[A]n 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). Our supreme court 

interpreted the meaning of “illegal sentence” as defined in Rule 36.1 and concluded that 

the definition “is coextensive, and not broader than, the definition of the term in the habeas 

corpus context.” State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 594-95 (Tenn. 2015). The Wooden 

court then reviewed the three categories of sentencing errors: clerical errors (those arising 

from a clerical mistake in the judgment sheet), appealable errors (those for which the 

Sentencing Act specifically provides a right of direct appeal) and fatal errors (those so 

profound as to render a sentence illegal and void). Id. Commenting on appealable errors, 

the court stated that those “generally involve attacks on the correctness of the methodology 

by which a trial court imposed sentence.” Id. In contrast, fatal errors include “sentences 

imposed pursuant to an inapplicable statutory scheme, sentences designating release 

eligibility dates where early release is statutorily prohibited, sentences that are ordered to 

be served concurrently where statutorily required to be served consecutively, and sentences 

not authorized by any statute for the offenses.” Id. The court held that only fatal errors 

render sentences illegal. Id. A trial court may summarily dismiss a Rule 36.1 motion if it 

does not state a colorable claim for relief. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 36.1(b)(2).

The State initially notes the procedural deficiencies in the Defendant’s motion to 

correct an illegal sentence. We agree. The Defendant failed to “attach to the motion a 
- 3 -

copy of each judgment order at issue.” Id. In so doing, the Defendant failed to comply 

with the procedural requirements of Rule 36.1, and he failed to provide this Court with an 

adequate record to review on appeal. The trial court’s dismissal is proper on this ground 

alone. Nonetheless, we conclude that the trial court’s denial on the basis that the Defendant 

has failed to state a colorable claim was proper. The Defendant is not entitled to relief.

III. Conclusion

In accordance with the aforementioned reasoning and authorities, we affirm the trial 

court’s summary dismissal of the Defendant’s Rule 36.1 motion to correct an illegal 

sentence. 

____________________________________

ROBERT W. WEDEMEYER, JUDGE