96 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 20 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287, 292 (Tenn. Crim. 2005Thus, for an illegal sentence claim to support a claim for habeas corpus relief, the illegality of the sentence must be egregious to the point of voidness, Cox v. State, 53 S.W.3d 287, 292 (Tenn. Crim. | 13 | 13 |
Summers v. Stategreen2 sentences2019A petitioner has the burden to provide an adequate record for his habeas corpus claim, and “[i]n the case of an illegal sentence claim based on facts not apparent from the face of the judgment, an adequate record for summary review must include pertinent documents to support those factual assertions.” Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 261 ; see T.R.A.P. 13(e) (stating the facts that may be considered on appeal). 2017Our supreme court has held that, “[i]n the case of an illegal sentence claim based on facts not apparent from the face of the judgment, an adequate record for summary review must include pertinent documents to support those factual assertions.” Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 261 . | 12 | 36 |
State of Tennessee v. James D. Woodengreen2 sentences2026P. 36.1(a)(2); see State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 594 (Tenn. 2015). “[A] Rule 36.1 motion must include factual allegations concerning the basis of the illegal sentence claim in order to state a colorable claim for relief.” Id. at 593 . 2026P. 36.1(a)(2); see State v. Wooden, 478 S.W.3d 585, 594 (Tenn. 2015). “[A] Rule 36.1 motion must include factual allegations concerning the basis of the illegal sentence claim in order to state a colorable claim for relief.” Id. at 593 . | 5 | 38 |
Moody v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005) (“[T]he proper procedure for challenging an illegal sentence at the trial level is through a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the grant or denial of which can then be appealed under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.”); see also Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tenn. 2007) (“A habeas corpus petition, rather than a motion to correct an illegal sentence, is the proper procedure for challenging an illegal sentence.”); Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tenn. 2000) (stating that a void sentence was properly challenged in a petiti 2015See Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005) (“[T]he proper procedure for challenging an illegal sentence at the trial level is through a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the grant or denial of which can then be appealed under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). | 5 | 5 |
McLaney v. Bellgreen2 sentences2015Summers I, 212 S.W.3d at 262 (overruling McLaney, 59 S.W.3d 90 , to the extent that it can be interpreted to require appointment of counsel and a hearing whenever a pro se habeas corpus petitioner alleges that an agreed sentence 5 is illegal but does not attach pertinent documents to support the illegal sentence claim). 5 Following the remand in Sawyers I, the habeas corpus court conducted a hearing at which a representative of TDOC testified that, according to the department‟s records, TDOC honored the concurrent alignment of the sentence in case 2, the illegal concurrent sentence had been fu 2007Although it is certainly true that “as a general rule, when a plea agreement includes an illegal sentence, a defendant is entitled to withdraw the guilty plea,” Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 258 (Tenn. 2007) (citing McLaney v. Bell, 59 S.W.3d 90, 94-95 (Tenn. 2001)), it is also true that “[i]n the case of an illegal sentence claim based on facts not apparent from the face of the judgment, an adequate record for summary review must include pertinent documents to support those factual assertions,” Summers, 212 S.W.3d. at 261. | 1 | 2 |
Stephenson v. Carltongreen2 sentences2015See Moody v. State, 160 S.W.3d 512, 516 (Tenn. 2005) (“[T]he proper procedure for challenging an illegal sentence at the trial level is through a petition for writ of habeas corpus, the grant or denial of which can then be appealed under the Rules of Appellate Procedure.”); see also Summers v. State, 212 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tenn. 2007) (“A habeas corpus petition, rather than a motion to correct an illegal sentence, is the proper procedure for challenging an illegal sentence.”); Stephenson v. Carlton, 28 S.W.3d 910, 912 (Tenn. 2000) (stating that a void sentence was properly challenged in a petiti 2015Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adlerred1 sentence2005Cf. Adler, 92 S.W.3d at 401 (holding that because no remedy exists for an erroneous grant or denial of an expungement order, the writ of certiorari is available as a method of seeking review of such an error). | 1 | 1 |
McConnell v. Stategreen1 sentence2005App. 2001), and our courts have sought to determine whether the sentence imposed was “beyond the outer limits” of the sentencing court’s authority, see McConnell v. State, 12 S.W.3d 795, 799 (Tenn.2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burkhartgreen1 sentence2001State v. Burkhart, 566 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn. 1978) (noting that the trial court had the power and duty to correct an illegal sentence at any time). -2- Typically, a challenge to an illegal sentence by an incarcerated defendant is by petition for writ of habeas corpus. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robinson v. Currey
green
1 sentence2015In Benson , the Court again affirmed the lower courts’ denial of habeas corpus relief, explaining that “[t]he sentences complained of were served and expired before the-petitioner filed", a habeas'Corpus petition to challenge them” and, therefore, he was not “ ‘imprisoned or restrained of liberty’ by any of the challenged convictions.” 153 S.W.3d at 32 (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-21-101 (a) (2000)). 'Two years later, the Court applied the holdings of Hickman and Benson to an illegal sentence claim. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Henry
green
1 sentence2012In order to successfully seek habeas corpus relief via an illegal sentence claim, “the petitioner must attach sufficient documentation establishing the illegality to his petition for writ of habeas corpus.” Id. (citing Summers, 212 S.W.3d at 261 (“In the case of an illegal sentence claim based on facts not apparent from the face of the judgment, an adequate record for summary review must include pertinent documents to support those factual assertions.”)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Summers v. Fortner
green
2 sentences2010In Summers II, this court concluded that Summers not only clarified the threshold procedural requirements of the habeas corpus statute, but, further, separated “the issue of the proper procedure for presenting an illegal sentence claim from the remedy.” Id. at 6 . 2010It was specifically noted that the Summers holding “did not establish a requirement that a habeas corpus petitioner must show entitlement to withdrawal of a guilty plea through documents attached to his petition.” Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Pettus
green
1 sentence1999However, in State v. Jabbaul Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn.1999), our supreme court held that the knowing, intelligent and voluntary entry of a guilty plea to a Class B cocaine felony waives any contention about the indictment not alleging the quantity of cocaine needed for a Class B felony. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.