Terry L. Baker v. State of Tennessee - Concurring

I join with the majority in concluding that resentencing is necessary for those reasons recited in the opinion. In addition, I find that resentencing is also required for the following reasons. The plea agreement, which is the subject of this appeal, was not negotiated contemporaneously with the petitioner's revocation hearing in January 1997; rather, it was negotiated at the time of his original guilty pleas in May 1995. At that time, he received a ten-year community correction sentence. The 1995 plea agreement provided that should he violate a condition of his ten-year sentence, he would then serve a "minimum of twelve years at thirty-five percent . . . and the State would request at least partial consecutive sentencing." I find this type of sentence is not authorized by our sentencing laws.