WPC 7aϬy~ofjA@a¬XuOs 0a]gQ'm=(%cs5ՁEFaypA6(,]B2A!Ⱦp^6yX)[6\){͟kG9|~ٝ9uD~nNW-"3Ni9zjwVΣy m"0?-4z_f$M7fi ҇EM7=(@C`{Vy*MsܕKpT0okh_/:kjiiW*PyG׬Gie ֍۬>Uva)ĕ1uyhGid5cW^QE/xE0kpnE`BH d sBG{>b@0b#^R4_ALJQtWD)}.b#\ %% UN+ 0y UN 0O ^ z,  wx 4|    g- mN 0 0DE 0 0 0= 0 0 0  1u 72b....................... 1e6666666666666 0 B 0 D5G D-| 0K ASG 0  0D AHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular*GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   as1  C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpth_B03|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U*AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  (#$  0  *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x    ALDRIDGEHCkidnappingspousalaffirmanceWedemeyerPottsBomaractus reus rea3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)i)- - 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(|G2$ !.8 dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8 dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8 dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8 dd8     _    87XXdd8@hh} INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE# } #Ԉ #   X7X  # XX7#_MARCELLUS_Ԁ_HAZELITT_Ԁv.STATEOFTENNESSEEX7X   ? @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  9 @@No.2002A502SethW.Norman,Judge  # @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200302542CCAR3COFiledNovember18,_2004_   AV) ` dE<]` A ^     # XX7#X7X X:XXX7ThismatterisbeforetheCourtupontheStatesmotiontodismisstheappellantsappeal,orinthe V  alternative,affirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionpursuanttoRule20, ? RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Theappellantfiledamotionforcorrectionorreductionof (x sentencethatthetrialcourtdeniedwithoutbenefitofahearing.Afterreviewingtherecordinthis a case,wefindtheStatesmotiontoaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourtbymemorandumhasmerit. J Accordingly,themotionisgrantedandtheappealisaffirmedpursuanttoRule20,Rulesofthe 3 CourtofCriminalAppeals.  #X7XXX:#X:XXX7#c XX:#X:X c #X7XXX:>## XX7#X7X    Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheTrialCourtisAffirmed.   # X7#X7X.   JerryL.Smith,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidH.Welles,andThomasT. Z _Woodall_,JJ.,joined. C _Marcellus_Ԁ_Hazelitt_,prose,Nashville,Tennessee. e PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;ElizabethBingham_Marney_,AssistantAttorney  7  General,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. ! ! # XX7 #X7X # XX7 #c  X:X c @! MEMORANDUMOPINION  $ $   Fromtherecord,itappearsthattheappellantpledguiltytoonecountofaggravatedburglary, &!& onecountofattemptedaggravatedrobberyandonecountofaggravatedassault.Aspartofhisplea o'"' agreement,theappellantagreedtoservefiveyearsforeachcountconsecutivelytooneanotheras X(#( aRangeIStandardOffender.ThejudgmentswerefiledonMarch19,2003.OnJuly3,2003, A)$) within120daysofthejudgmentsbeingentered,theappellantfiledamotiontocorrectorreducehis **z%* sentencebaseduponRules35and32_(c_)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.Inthis +c&+ motion,theappellantarguedthatthesesentencesshouldhavebeenorderedtorunconcurrently.The +L', trialcourtdeniedtheappellantsmotionbaseduponauthoritywhichstatesthatconsecutive ,5(- sentencingissubjecttopleanegotiations.Thetrialcourtwentontostatethattheappellantentered -). _hispleaagreementknowinglyandvoluntarilyandthatpleaagreementindicatedtheconsecutive  serviceofsentences.    Analysis k   Rule35oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedurestates, Thetrialcourtmayreducea =  sentenceuponapplicationfiledwithin120daysafterthedatethesentenceisimposedorprobation & v isrevoked.ThestandardofreviewwhenreviewingRule35rulingsisthe abuseofdiscretion  _ standard.Theappellantdidfilehismotionwithinthe120days.However,wedonotfindthatthe  H trialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninthisinstance.Asthetrialcourtstatedinitsorder,theappellant  1  agreedtohispleaagreementwhichincludedthatthesentenceswouldrunconsecutively.Thiscourt    hasheldthatconsecutivesentencingissubjecttopleanegotiations.SeeStatev.MatthewStalcup,   No.E200300481CCAR3CD,2004WL875265,at*11(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,April   23,2004);Statev.BenjaminChristopherAshworth,No.03C01-9902-CC-00065,1996WL804060,   at*3-4(Tenn.Crim.App.atKnoxville,Oct.6,1999);Statev.HoustonGradyChapman,No. n  01C01-9808-CC-00354,1998WL855441at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Dec.11,1998); W  PatrickWilliamsv.State,No.01C01-9506-CR-00190,1996WL233982,at*45(Tenn.Crim.App. @ atNashville,May9,1996). )y   Conclusion K   FortheforegoingreasonstheStatesmotiontoaffirm,pursuanttoRule20,Rulesofthe  CourtofCriminalAppealsinGRANTED.ThisjudgmentofthetrialcourtisAFFIRMED.#X7XXX:[ #X:XXX7  #X7XXX:S#X:XXX7#X7XXX:Ϋ#   `     h     ___________________________________ q    `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE