The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny Marcus Anthony Pearson’s motion to correct his sentence. Pearson, who is serving a life sentence plus 20 years for convictions related to a 2006 case, argued that his sentence was illegal and should be corrected. The court found that the trial court properly denied the motion, as Pearson’s sentence was not illegal under the law.
Background of the Case
The case stems from events that occurred on April 15, 2006, in Davidson County. A jury convicted Pearson of first-degree premeditated murder, two counts of first-degree felony murder, and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison for the murder conviction, with the felony murder convictions merged into it. He also received twenty-year sentences for each attempted murder conviction, to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the life sentence, resulting in an effective sentence of life plus twenty years.
Pearson initially appealed his convictions. The appeals court affirmed the convictions but found that the trial court had made an error in ordering consecutive sentences. The court ruled that the trial court had not adequately followed the requirements outlined in *State v. Wilkerson*, which govern the imposition of consecutive sentences. *Wilkerson* requires specific findings to ensure the consecutive sentences are necessary to protect the public and reasonably relate to the severity of the crimes. The appeals court sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing solely on the issue of consecutive sentences.
A resentencing hearing was held on December 3, 2009. The trial court stated that an extended sentence was necessary to protect the public and that the offenses were very serious, thus the consecutive sentence was appropriate.
Pearson later filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed as time-barred. This led to further legal proceedings, including a remand to determine the timeliness of Pearson’s petition and the eventual entry of amended judgment forms in 2013, reflecting the original sentence. Pearson’s post-conviction claims were ultimately denied.
In 2023, Pearson filed the motion that is the subject of this appeal, arguing that his sentence was illegal because the trial court never properly made the *Wilkerson* findings to justify the consecutive sentences.
The Court’s Reasoning
The appeals court addressed several arguments made by Pearson. First, it considered whether the trial court’s order denying Pearson’s motion was sufficient. Rule 36.1 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the court to set forth findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order granting or denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The appeals court found that the trial court’s order, which outlined the factual background, restated Pearson’s arguments, and explained its reasoning for denying the motion, met the requirements of Rule 36.1(e).
Second, the court addressed Pearson’s argument that his consecutive sentences were illegal because the trial court did not comply with the *Wilkerson* requirements. The appeals court stated that the trial court had determined that it had, in fact, complied with the *Wilkerson* factors during the 2009 resentencing. The court emphasized that Rule 36.1 is not meant to be used to challenge a trial court’s factual findings and that whether the trial court properly followed *Wilkerson* was an appealable error. The court cited previous cases to support the assertion that the failure to make the necessary findings for consecutive sentencing does not automatically make the sentence illegal.
Finally, the court addressed Pearson’s claim that the amended judgment forms were not entered in a timely manner. The court noted that Pearson did not raise this issue in his initial motion but did bring it up later in a brief. However, because Pearson was represented by counsel at the time the brief was filed, and counsel did not raise the issue at the hearing, the court determined the issue was waived. The court also observed that, even if the issue had been properly raised, the delay in entering the amended judgment forms did not change Pearson’s sentence and therefore did not constitute a fatal error.
Conclusion
The Court of Criminal Appeals ultimately agreed with the trial court’s decision. Because Pearson’s sentence was authorized by the applicable statutes and did not directly violate any statute, it was not considered illegal. The court found no fatal errors in the record and affirmed the trial court’s denial of Pearson’s motion to correct his sentence.