CCA Raises Issue Regarding State-Federal Concurrent Sentences

Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Camille R. McMullen last week issued an opinion regarding state-federal concurrent sentences. In the opinion, the court sua sponte raised this issue and remanded the case to the trial court:
 
“We are constrained to note that the state judgments in this case show that the Petitioner’s . . . sentences . . . are to be served concurrently with a previously imposed federal sentence . . . .  There are two ways in which the federal sentence may be made concurrent with the state sentence (1) the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) may designate the state prison as the place of confinement for the federal term of imprisonment or (2) the BOP, in its discretion, may accept a state prisoner into federal custody when state officials offer to transfer a prisoner who has not fulfilled the state term of imprisonment.  . . .  [T]here was no testimony at the guilty-plea hearing or the post-conviction hearing as to how the Petitioner settled his federal case, the extent to which there was coordination between federal and state counsel to resolve the matters, or whether the federal court agreed to allow the Petitioner to serve his anticipated state sentence in a federal facility.  While serving a concurrent state and federal sentence is not prohibited by our law, . . . [it] has been roundly criticized by this court for its pitfalls. . . .  Accordingly, we must remand this matter to the post-conviction court for a hearing to determine whether the Petitioner was advised of the consequences of entering a guilty plea based upon the agreement that his state sentence be served concurrently with a prior federal sentence.”  Marty Holland v. State, Tenn. Crim. App. No. W2018-01517-CCA-R3-PC (Mar. 27, 2019).
AttachmentSize
holland.v.tenn_.pdf141.6 KB
          | TBA Law Blog