State of Tennessee v. George Prince Watkins-Concurring In Part, Dissenting In Part

I concur with the majority's conclusion that the Appellant has presented a colorable claim as to case numbers 90-227, 90-161, and 90-935 and that those cases must be remanded for appointment of counsel and a hearing unless waived by the parties. I respectfully disagree with the majority's conclusion that the Appellant presented a colorable claim as to case number 86-521, and I would affirm the summary dismissal of the motion as to that case. I write separately to explain my opinion concerning each of the four cases and to express my opinion that a felony committed while a defendant is released on bail for a probation violation does not trigger mandatory consecutive sentencing, and that if following the hearing on remand, the trial court determines that the six-year, illegal concurrent sentence entered in 1990 has been fully served and has expired, then the promise of concurrence has been fulfilled, and the claim raised by the Rule 36.1 motion is moot.