STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM G. BARNETT, JR. - Articles

All Content

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM G. BARNETT, JR.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Apr 23, 2014

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Gerald L. Melton, District Public Defender, for the appellant, William G. Barnett, Jr.

Attorneys 2: Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Rachel Harmon, Senior Counsel; William Whitesell, District Attorney General; and Laural A. Hemenway, Assistant District Attorney Generals, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WILLIAMS

The petitioner, William G. Barnett, Jr., pled guilty to four counts of aggravated statutory rape, Class D felonies, and one count of attempted solicitation of sexual exploitation of a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. Based upon the imposition of consecutive sentencing, the petitioner was sentenced to serve three years in the Department of Correction, followed by three years of probation. At the guilty plea hearing, the State noted that the petitioner asked to be allowed to reserve a certified question of law to appeal. The State read the petitioner’s question on the record, and the handwritten and signed statement was included in the record. It stated, “I would like to reserve my right to appeal the decision on the motion to dismiss.” The petitioner filed notice of direct appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court summarily dismissed based upon the pending direct appeal. The petitioner appealed that dismissal. This court has now consolidated those two issues into a single case. Thus, the issues presently before us are: (1) whether the defendant’s direct appeal of his certified question is properly before this court; and (2) whether the trial court properly dismissed the petition for the writ of habeas corpus. Upon review, we conclude that the certified question is not properly before this court and dismiss that portion of the appeal. However, with regard to habeas corpus relief, the petitioner has established what may be an illegal sentence. Remand to the trial court is necessary for further factual findings and actions taken in accordance with this opinion.

Attachments: