Skip to main content

State of Tennessee v. Cameron Buchanan

TENNCRIMAPPApril 17, 2018No. W2017-01795-CCA-R3-CD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr.
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
trial verdict

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

"The Movant," Cameron Buchanan, filed a "Motion to Vacate, Correct Clerical Error, and/or, otherwise Set Aside an Illegal Sentence" ("the motion"). The gist of the Movant's claim is that his fifteen-year sentence for especially aggravated kidnapping in case 98-09641 was ordered to be served concurrently, not consecutively, with his fifteenyear sentence for especially aggravated kidnapping in case 98-09629, and therefore, his effective sentence was twenty-five years, not thirty years. The trial court treated the motion as a Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 motion to correct clerical mistakes in the judgments and summarily dismissed the motion finding "that there [we]re no clerical errors as alleged by [the Movant]." We determine that there are clerical errors in the judgments for cases 98-09635 through 98-09639 and case 98-09641. The errors in the judgments also correspond with the language of the "Negotiated Plea Agreement" forms for cases 98-09635 through 98-09639 and case 98-09641. Additionally, the trial court did not address the Movant's Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1 claim that his sentence was illegal. The judgment summarily dismissing the motion is reversed, and the case remanded for correction of the clerical errors, which may require appointment of counsel and a hearing, and for determination as to whether or not the motion stated a colorable claim under Rule 36.1.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** This case involved Cameron Buchanan, who was challenging his criminal sentence rather than dealing with a typical employment law dispute. Buchanan had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for kidnapping charges in two separate cases. He argued that the court made an error in his sentencing - claiming his sentences should run at the same time (concurrently) rather than one after the other (consecutively). This would mean serving 15 years total instead of 30 years. **What the court decided:** The appeals court sent the case back to the lower court to resolve the sentencing question. They did not make a final decision about whether Buchanan's sentences should run concurrently or consecutively. **Why this matters for workers:** Despite being labeled as an employment law case, this appears to be purely a criminal sentencing matter with no clear connection to workplace rights or employment issues. Workers should not expect this case to impact their employment protections, workplace safety, wage rights, or other job-related legal matters. The case seems to have been misclassified and does not establish any precedent relevant to employment law.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.