Tennessee Administrative Office of the Courts

The petitioner, Gregory Scott Spooner, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petition fails to establish a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

This direct appeal follows dismissal of the appellant's motion at the trial level for a "Correction/Reduction" of his sentences. The appellant is currently serving an effective sentence of life without parole after pleading guilty in 1995 to the offenses of first degree murder, two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of aggravated assault. He argues that his sentences are illegal and are subject to correction because (1) his life sentence is in direct contravention of statutory authority and (2) his negotiated plea agreement with the State is incapable of specific performance. The indictment alleges that these offenses occurred on December 24, 1992. On this date, life without the possibility of parole was not an available sentencing option for first degree murder. Although we find that appellate review of a "Motion for Correction or Reduction" of a sentence is not available, as of right, under Tenn. R. App. P. 3(b), nonetheless, we hold that review is available under the common law writ of certiorari. Upon review of the presented issues, we conclude that the trial court was without authority to impose a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for first degree murder. This conviction and sentence is vacated. Because the appellant's plea agreement encompassed all of his convictions and resulting sentences, we find it necessary upon vacating his first degree murder conviction to also vacate his convictions and sentences for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault. This case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

The defendant was convicted of first degree murder and especially aggravated robbery and was originally sentenced to death and twenty years, respectively. The trial court ordered the sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, this court affirmed both convictions but reversed the death sentence and remanded it for resentencing. On remand, the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment after a new sentencing hearing. The life sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to the original twenty-year sentence for especially aggravated robbery. The only issue raised on this appeal is whether, on remand, the trial court erred by not reconsidering the issue of consecutive sentencing when resentencing the defendant for the murder conviction. We affirm the sentence as imposed on remand by the trial court.