The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals recently upheld the denial of a motion filed by Devonta Curry, who sought to correct what he described as an illegal sentence. The court affirmed the lower court's decision while also ordering clerical corrections to his convictions. This ruling impacts Curry, who is currently serving a thirty-year sentence for multiple serious crimes, including aggravated burglary and robbery.

Curry's case began in 2018 when he was convicted by a Madison County jury on several charges. These included one count of aggravated burglary, two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, three counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. The trial court imposed a total sentence of thirty years, with various counts served concurrently and consecutively.

In January 2026, Curry filed a pro se motion titled "Motion for Rule 36.1 Correction of Illegal Sentence." In this motion, he claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel and that his convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. He requested that the trial court dismiss his convictions in Counts 2-7 and modify his sentence for Count 1 to five years. However, his motion did not claim that any of his sentences were illegal.

The trial court denied Curry's motion, stating that it failed to present a colorable claim for relief. Curry then appealed this decision, leading to the current ruling by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee.

In its ruling, the court, led by Judge Robert L. Holloway, Jr., stated, "Movant’s Rule 36.1 motion does not allege any facts establishing that his sentences are illegal." The court explained that Rule 36.1 is designed to address illegal sentences, not to reverse convictions. The court noted that Curry's motion did not provide sufficient factual allegations to support his claims. Therefore, the court concluded that he was not entitled to relief under Rule 36.1.

Furthermore, the court found that Curry had abandoned his Rule 36.1 claim by failing to reference or cite the rule in his appeal. The ruling emphasized that a motion under Rule 36.1 must specifically state the factual basis for claiming an illegal sentence, which Curry's motion did not do. The court affirmed the trial court's summary denial of the motion.

Despite affirming the denial of Curry's motion, the court acknowledged clerical errors in the documentation of his convictions. It noted that the judgments incorrectly indicated that Curry had pleaded guilty rather than being convicted by a jury. The court ordered that these clerical errors be corrected, stating, "Clerical errors 'arise simply' from a clerical mistake in filling out the uniform judgment document and may be corrected at any time under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36."

This ruling has significant implications for Curry, who remains incarcerated under a lengthy sentence for serious offenses. The court's decision clarifies the requirements for filing a motion under Rule 36.1 and emphasizes the importance of providing a clear factual basis for claims of illegal sentences. It also highlights the court's willingness to correct clerical errors that may arise in the documentation of convictions.

Looking ahead, Curry's options for appeal may be limited, as the court has affirmed the lower court's ruling. However, he may still pursue other legal avenues or motions in the future. The case also serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements necessary for defendants seeking to challenge their sentences in Tennessee.