State v. Walker

• Decision Date: 27 September 2022
• Docket Number: E2021-01115-CCA-R3-CD
• Parties: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. STEPHEN V. WALKER
• Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

STATE OF TENNESSEE
v.
STEPHEN V. WALKER

No. E2021-01115-CCA-R3-CD

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Knoxville

September 27, 2022

Assigned on Briefs September 27, 2022

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 166974 Barry A. Steelman, Judge

The pro se petitioner, Stephen V. Walker, appeals the Hamilton County Criminal Court's summary dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1. Discerning no error, we affirm.

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

Stephen V. Walker, Wartburg, Tennessee, pro se.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine C. Redding, Assistant Attorney General; and Neal Pinkston, District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

James Curwood Witt, Jr., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Camille R. McMullen, and Tom Greenholtz, JJ., joined.

OPINION

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

A Hamilton County Criminal Court jury convicted the petitioner of armed robbery, for which the petitioner received a life sentence. State v. Jeffery Boozer and Stephen V. Walker, No. 1061, 1988 WL 74604, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, July 21, 1988). This court affirmed the petitioner's conviction on direct appeal, and our supreme court denied further review. Id. at *1-3.

Since his direct appeal, the petitioner has collaterally attacked his conviction and sentence via multiple avenues. First, he sought post-conviction relief on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Steven Vincent Walker v. State, No. 03C01-9205CR169, 1992 WL 371767, at *1-2 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, Dec. 17, 1992). His petition was unsuccessful, and this court affirmed the denial of post-conviction relief. Id.

1

Next, in November 2000, the petitioner sought habeas corpus relief,

alleging that his sentence was illegal because: (1) he was improperly sentenced as a persistent offender; (2) his sentence was improperly enhanced because he did not receive the State's notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment (3) the record of his prior criminal convictions relied upon to sentence him was inaccurate; and (4) his counsel was ineffective

Steve V. Walker v. State, No. E2001-00322-CCA-R3-CD, 2002 WL 1162354, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Knoxville, June 3, 2002). The trial court, construing the habeas corpus petition as a motion to correct an illegal sentence, denied relief, concluding that the petitioner's sentence was legal. Id. On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the Code authorized "a term of imprisonment of not less than ten years to life imprisonment . . . for the crime of robbery accomplished by the use of a deadly weapon." Id. at *2 (citing T.C.A. § 39-2-501(a) (1981) (repealed)). This court also concluded that "the fact that the [p]etitioner was on probation at the time he committed the offense justifies the classification of the offense as an especially aggravated offense," that "a defect in the notice of intent to seek sentence enhancement does not render an enhanced sentence illegal," and that the petitioner's disagreement with a trial court's "application of enhancement and mitigating factors" does not render a sentence illegal. Id. at *2-3.

The petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, again arguing "that his sentence was not authorized by the 1982 Sentencing Act." Steve V. Walker v. State, No W2006-01170-CCA-R3-HC, 2007 WL 2935620, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App., Jackson, Oct. 9, 2007). The habeas corpus court summarily dismissed the petition, "finding that the [p]etitioner's issues had already been addressed in his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus and that he failed to state a cognizable claim for relief." Id. This court again affirmed the denial of relief, reiterating that "a life sentence was within the applicable range of punishment for the offense," that the judgment's silence on release eligibility did not render the sentence illegal, that the petitioner's offense was correctly classified as an especially aggravated one, and that "the State gave timely notice that it intended to seek enhanced punishment." Id. at *3.

In August 2015, the petitioner moved to correct what he believed to be an illegal sentence under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, arguing that his life sentence exceeded the maximum punishment allowed for a Range II offender and that the trial court improperly weighed mitigating and enhancing factors. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, concluding that "a misapplication of enhancing and mitigating factors does not render a sentence illegal" and that "the law in effect at the time of the [petitioner's] offense" permitted a life sentence for a conviction of robbery accomplished

2

by the use of a deadly weapon. The petitioner failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court denied his motion for a delayed appeal.

On July 9, 2021, the petitioner filed a second motion pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 36.1, arguing that his sentence is illegal because the trial court "erroneously enhanced" his sentence by applying certain enhancement factors in addition to the Class X felony provisions. See...