State of Tennessee v. Albert Taylor-Concurring

Although I concur with the lead opinion's holding that this case needs to be remanded for the appointment of counsel and a hearing, I write separately to express my opinion that, if the evidence at the hearing proves that the effective sentence entered in 1992 has been fully served and has expired, the controversy is moot and not justiciable. Moreover, even if the effective sentence has not expired, if the proof establishes only that the Defendant's three-year illegal concurrent sentence has been fully served, I would hold that the fulfillment of the promise of concurrence purged the illegality from the Defendant's effective sentence such that the controversy is moot and not justiciable and the Defendant would not be entitled to relief under Rule 36.1.