PHILANDER BUTLER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Jul 14, 2015

Head Comment: With dissenting opinion.

Court: TN Court of Criminal Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Philander Butler, Memphis, Tennessee, pro se.

Attorneys 2:

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Clark B. Thornton, Assistant Attorney General; Amy P. Weirich, District Attorney General; and Bryce Phillips, Assistant District Attorney General, for the Appellee, State of Tennessee.

Judge(s): WILLIAMS

The defendant, Philander Butler, appeals the summary dismissal of his Rule 36.1 Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence. The trial court summarily dismissed the motion, finding that the challenged 1989 and 1990 sentences had expired and that “the intent of Rule 36.1 was not to revive old cases.” On appeal, the defendant argues that the rule states that he may challenge an illegal sentence “at any time.” He also argues that because he erroneously filed his motion in the wrong division of the Criminal Court for Shelby County that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to deny his motion. Following our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.