State of Tennessee v. Andre Anthony
Syllabus
The Defendant, Andre Anthony, appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to correct a clerical mistake pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36. The Defendant contends that his two consecutive sentences at issue were originally ordered to run in a specific order but that the challenged corrected judgment forms indicate that each sentence runs consecutively to the other, in no particular order, and should once again be corrected. The State responds that the trial court correctly denied the Rule 36 motion because the order of the consecutive sentences is immaterial and because the corrected judgments accurately reflect the Defendant's sentence. After review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the phrase “any and all controversies” is “elastic enough to encompass disputes over whether a claim ... is within the scope of arbitration”
- holding that NASD Code not incorporated into identical client-broker arbitration agreement because NASD not identifiable as actual arbitral forum at time of execution of the agreement
- holding that NASD Code not incorporated into identical client-broker arbitration agreement because NASD not identifiable as actual arbitral forum at time of execution of the agreement
- holding that the language of § 1 is “clear and unmistakable”
- holding that the time bar limitation is an \arbitrability question\
- holding that the time bar limitation is an “arbitrability question”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.