IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. RUSSELL LEE MAZE

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County

No. 2002-D-2361 Steve R. Dozier, Judge

No. M2014-02338-CCA-R3-CD – Filed July 22, 2015

_____________________________

The Appellant, Russell Lee Maze, is appealing the order of the trial court denying his 

“Motion for Order Correcting Error in Judgment.” 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

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERT W.

WEDEMEYER and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Russell Lee Maze, pro se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Caitlin Smith, Assistant Attorney 

General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Appellant is appealing the trial court‟s order denying his “Motion for Order 

Correcting Error in Judgment.” The Appellant was convicted of first degree felony 

murder and aggravated child abuse, for which he received sentences of life imprisonment 

and twenty-five years, respectively. Said convictions and concurrent sentences were 

affirmed on appeal. State v. Russell Lee Maze, No. M2004-02091-CCA-R3-CD, 2006 

WL 1132083 (Tenn. Crim. App., Apr. 28, 2006), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn., Aug. 28, 

2006). The Appellant was subsequently unsuccessful in the pursuit of post-conviction 
2

and error coram nobis relief. Russell Lee Maze v. State, No. M2008-01837-CCA-R3-PC, 

2010 WL 4324377 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nov. 2, 2010), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn., Mar. 

9, 2011). The Appellant then filed the instant action pursuant to Tennessee Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 36.1 challenging the legality of his life sentence for felony murder. 

The trial court denied the motion. 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 

Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. For the reasons stated below, said motion is hereby 

granted.

The Appellant frames his argument on appeal as follows: “The graverman [sic] of

the Appellant‟s Motion is that, the trial court sentenced him to a term of punishment „not‟ 

authorized by statute, which thereafter takes him „beyond‟ the range of his [„status‟] 

classification as designed by the [1989] Sentencing Reform Act – hereafter, „The Act,‟ 

intended for the criminally accused having a Life Term to serve, however, with no 

specific term of years, as required by statute – all other offenses and sentence running 

concurrent with count-1.” The gist of his argument is that the life sentence he received 

for the felony murder conviction is illegal because it does not specify a term of years.

Rule 36.1 permits a defendant to seek correction of an illegal sentence at any time. 

“[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). Contrary to the 

Appellant‟s contention, the trial court correctly held that the Appellant‟s life sentence is 

specifically authorized by statute and, thus, legal. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-202(c). See 

State v. Derrick Carey, No. M2015-00185-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 4077056 (Tenn. 

Crim. App., July 6, 2015) (rejecting argument pursuant to Rule 36.1 that life sentence for 

felony murder is illegal because it is not a determinate sentence); Leslie L. Coleman v. 

Jim Morrow, Warden, No. E2010-02299-CCA-R3-HC, 2011 WL 3667724 (Tenn. Crim. 

App., Aug. 22, 2011), perm. to app. denied, (Tenn., Dec. 14, 2011) (holding that 

sentencing statutes define life sentence as a specific, determinate sentence).

Accordingly, the order of the trial court is hereby affirmed pursuant to Rule 20.

_________________________________

ROBERT L. HOLLOWAY, JR., JUDGE