State vs. Rocky Wilkerson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 6, 2001 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ROCKY LANE WILKERSON Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County No. 99-0213 John H. Gasaway, III, Judge No. M2000-02473-CCA-R3-CD - Filed July 9, 2001 On March 17, 2000, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of driving after having been declared a habitual traffic offender.1 At his May 5, 2000, sentencing hearing the transcript indicates that the trial court ordered him to serve two consecutive one-year sentences for these crimes as a Range I, standard offender. However, the judgments indicate that the defendant received consecutive twoyear sentences. On June 5, 2000, the defendant filed his notice of appeal, and now asks this Court to modify the judgments to reflect the announced sentence. After reviewing the record and applicable caselaw, we find this issue to have merit and, thus, remand the matter for correction of the judgments. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court is Remanded. JERRY L. SMITH, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOSEPH M. TIPTON, and JOE G. RILEY, JJ., joined. Gregory D. Smith, Clarksville, Tennessee, for appellee, Rocky Lane Wilkerson. Paul G. Summers, Attorney General & Reporter; Elizabeth T. Ryan, Assistant Attorney General; John Carney, District Attorney General and Dent Morriss, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee, State of Tennessee. OPINION Factual Background On separate dates in February of 1999, the defendant drove a vehicle on the public roadways of Robertson County in spite of having been declared a habitual traffic offender. As above-noted, he was charged with and pled guilty to these offenses. At a subsequent sentencing hearing the trial court announced giving everything that I ve alluded to, the Court believes that the proper sentence for each of these offenses is a year sentence and ... that they should be served consecutively. Yet 1 At this time num erous add itional charge s pending a gainst the defen dant were d ismissed. the judgments indicate that the defendant received consecutive two-year sentences.2 It is from these allegedly erroneous judgments that the defendant seeks relief. Error in the Judgment Form When analyzing situations involving conflicts between a judgment and a sentencing hearing transcript, caselaw provides that the transcript controls. See, e.g., State v. Moore, 814 S.W. 2d 381, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). The trial court in the instant case clearly stated that the defendant was to receive consecutive one year sentences. Through its brief the State agrees that the judgment is in error and should be corrected. We concur. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons we determine that the defendant s allegation merits relief. Accordingly, we remand this case for the trial court to correct the respective judgments in order to reflect the consecutive one year sentences. ___________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE 2 These ju dgments w ere signed b y neither the pro secution no r the defense a ttorney. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
