WPC U4V %bn 0UU:7 4q #   w@ UN 0J& 0Tp 0^ 0h" 0r 0| 0x 0 1u 0dU>gU6U*B) B.DCK AMv~g D3v 0@ AO+z 0D@ D/ B<6X9`(Courier 10 X- -3|xb<6X9`(Courier 10Xx6X@29X@(P$  TR[A'LEGAL3'A' Legal3'T  XXXXXXXX-^AZ"Arial Regularԡ HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh PPQ RS TU VWXEYӀ(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(&Times New Roman<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd-&C << G  !  #d#!\RA'\  "  ##   YYY FILED#XNovember4,1997CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`%%%%'dxdStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   ion-F Geneva  ion-F Geneva ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !\RA'\  "         X "#7<XXdd7R'(&A1-j|`  `@Rߛ @ #X INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ ATNASHVILLE` XXWILLIAMHIGHTOWER,   )      ) C.C.A.NO.01C019708CC00356  Appellant,    ) (No.39784Below)      ) WILLIAMSONCOUNTY VS.      ) TheHon.DonaldP.Harris      )STATEOFTENNESSEE,   ) (DenialofMotiontoCorrectIllegal      ) Sentence)  Appellee.    ) AFFIRMEDPURSUANTTORULE20@ ORDER   ThismatterisbeforethisCourtupontheStatesmotiontoaffirmthelowercourtsjudgmentpursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Findingthemotiontobewelltaken,thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.  In1988,theappellantpledguiltytonumerouscountsofforgery.Insettingsentence,thetrialcourtstatedasfollows: 8 [O]nyourpleaofguiltytotheoffenseofforgeryofaninstrumentrepresentingamonetaryvalueinexcessoftwohundreddollarsincountsthreeandseven,Ifindyouareguiltyofthatoffenseineachofthosecases.Oneachofthosecounts,IsentenceyoutofouryearsintheDepartmentofCorrectionsasastandardoffender.Thesentenceineachofthosecasestorunconsecutive,onetoanother.  OnJune3,1997,theappellantfiledhis MotiontoCorrectIllegalSentencecontendingthattheconsecutivesentencesareillegal.Thetrialcourtdeniedthemotion,notingthat [r]equiringtwolegalsentencestobeservedconsecutively[does]notmakethemillegalsentencesandrulingthatthemotion actuallyseekstohavethecourt...modifyhissentenceand,inaccordancewithRule35,TennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure,theauthorityofthecourttomodifyasentencemayonlybegrantediftheapplicationthereforisfiledwithin120daysafterthedatethesentenceisimposed.  ThestatenowarguesthatweshouldaffirmpursuanttoRule20becausethecourtbelow correctlyconcludedthatthismotionwasuntimelyfiledunderTenn.R.Crim.P.,Rule35.Thestatealsoarguesthatthemotionwouldbeuntimelyiftreatedasapostconvictionpetitionandthat,wereitconsideredasapetitionforawritofhabeascorpus,itmustbedismissedforhavingbeenfiledinthewrongcourt.Thestatedoesnotaddressthemeritsoftheappeal.However,itisuponourconclusionthattheappellantscontentionhasnomeritthatwegrantthestatesmotion.  Atthetimetheappellantwassentenced,consecutivesentencingwaslefttothediscretionofthetrialjudge, provided,thattheexerciseofthediscretionofthetrialjudgeshallbereviewablebytheSupremeCourtonappeal.T.C.A.4020111(a)(1982).IntheseminalcaseofGrayv.State,538S.W.2d391,393(Tenn.1976),ourSupremeCourtsetforthfivecategoriesofoffendersforwhomconsecutivesentencingisappropriate,including theprofessionalcriminal,[thatis]onewhohasknowinglydevotedhimselftocriminalactsasamajorsourceoflivelihoodorwhohassubstantialincomeorresourcesnotshowntobederivedfromasourceotherthancriminalactivityand themultipleoffender,[thatis]onewhoserecordofcriminalactivityisextensive[.]Inthiscase,thetranscriptofthesentencinghearingrevealsthattheappellanthadbeenemployedasabookkeeperfortheAdventGroupandduringtheperiodfromJanuary1986toApril1987,forgedovertwohundredthousanddollars($200,000)worthofchecks.Thisactivityclassifiestheappellantasaprofessionalcriminal,forwhomconsecutivesentencesareappropriate.See,e.g.,Statev.Walker,713S.W.2d332(Tenn.Crim.App.1986).Thattheappellantpledguiltytooversixtycountsofforgeryalsoputshiminthecategoryofmultipleoffender.Id.Thus,theappellantsclaimthathisconsecutivesentencesontwoofthemultiplecountsareillegaliswhollywithoutmerit.  Hadthecourtbelowconsideredtheappellantspleadingasapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,summarydismissalwouldhavebeenappropriatebecauseitstatesnoconstitutionalviolation.SeeT.C.A.4030203and4030206(f)(1997).Moreover,hadthecourtbelowconsideredtheappellantspleadingasapetitionforwritofhabeascorpus,summarydismissalwouldlikewisehavebeenappropriatebecausetheappellantssentenceisvalidandhemakesnoclaimthatithasexpired.ϜSee,e.g.,Archerv.State,851S.W.2d157,164(Tenn.1993).  Becausetheactionbelowisnotadeterminationofguilt,andbecausetheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingofthetrialjudge,thejudgmentbelowisaffirmedpursuanttoRule20,RulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals.  ENTER,thisthe____dayof__________,1997.` X X      ________________________________      JOHNH.PEAY,JUDGECONCUR:________________________________DAVIDH.WELLES,JUDGE________________________________THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE