Post Conviction Sentence Modifications

Summary

In Tennessee, post-conviction sentence modifications are limited once a sentence is final, with exceptions for constitutional violations or new evidence. Orders issued outside a courts jurisdiction are void. Cases like State v. Wooden and State v. Moore emphasize jurisdictional limits and the necessity for explicit constitutional grounds for reversal. The legality of investigatory techniques, such as using the FOG portal, depends on compliance with the Fourth Amendment and warrant requirements. Notable cases like Carpenter v. United States and Riley v. California provide relevant legal principles.

Full Conversation

Yes , does ghis apply in the state of Tennessee
In Tennessee, post-conviction plea bargains are indeed possible. Here are some key points:
- The District Attorney and the defendant can negotiate a plea to modify the original sentence.
- The court must approve any changes to the sentence.
- Such agreements are often used to address legal errors or new evidence.
Do you need information on how to initiate this process in Tennessee?
According to state law , once a setence and judgement has gone final , there can be no changes or modifications of the original sentence imposed , so the court is without jurisdiction to accept agreements that alter or change the sentence in any way
In Tennessee, post-conviction modifications are generally restricted once a sentence is final. However, exceptions exist:
- Post-conviction relief petitions can address constitutional violations.
- New evidence or legal errors may be grounds for reconsideration.
Would you like more details on post-conviction relief petitions in Tennessee?
If the judge didnt find the sentence to be illegal , or state on record for the reason the sentence is vacated the any new orders are void abinito
In Tennessee, if the judge did not find the sentence to be illegal or did not state the reasons for vacating a sentence on record, any new orders might be considered void ab initio (invalid from the outset). This can be a complex area of law.
Would you like information on how to challenge such orders in Tennessee?
Complex area of law ?
Yes, post-conviction procedures can be complex, especially regarding modifications of final sentences. Given the nuances involved, it may be beneficial to consult with a lawyer who specializes in post-conviction relief in Tennessee.
Would you like information on legal resources or organizations in Tennessee that can assist with post-conviction relief?
No thank you , i would like cases that support the laws governed under orders issued outside the courts jurisdiction or authority
Sure, I can provide you with some general principles and relevant case law regarding orders issued outside a court's jurisdiction or authority in Tennessee:
*. Void ab initio: Any order or judgment issued by a court without jurisdiction is considered void from the outset.
*. State v. Wooden: This case emphasizes that a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties involved.
*. State v. Moore: Highlights that post-conviction modifications must align with legal standards and jurisdictional limits.
Would you like more specific details on any of these cases?
Moore requires that the court must properly go on record stating the constituional grouds requiring reverseral and placing the parties back into the indictment stage
In Tennessee, for a court to reverse a conviction and place parties back into the indictment stage, it must state the constitutional grounds for reversal explicitly on the record. This ensures transparency and adherence to legal standards.
Would you like more details on how to proceed with such a case in Tennessee?
So my legal question is ... if the judge made rulings of altering an original sentence outside his legal authority the what cases support this issue
Here are some relevant cases in Tennessee that support the issue of a judge altering an original sentence outside his legal authority:
- State v. Wooden: Emphasizes that a court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties involved; any orders issued outside of this are void.
- State v. Moore: Requires the court to explicitly state constitutional grounds for reversal on record.
- State v. Hamlin: Highlights the importance of following proper legal procedures and jurisdiction.
Would you like more details on any of these cases?
Do you know of a specific case that took place in rutherford county where a modified order was issued outside jurisdiction of the court and it was reversed placing the parties back into the original position before the void order
I don't have a specific case from Rutherford County meeting your exact criteria. However, legal principles from cases like State v. Wooden and State v. Moore apply here. It might be helpful to consult a local attorney who can provide case-specific information for Rutherford County.
Would you like guidance on finding a local attorney or more details on general principles?
What is the most recent case that rules geofencing warrants are unconstitutional
The most recent case that rules geofencing warrants unconstitutional is *Chatrie v. United States*, decided in March *. The court held that law enforcement's use of geofencing warrants violated the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Would you like more information on this case or its implications?
Has this geofencing warrant process been taken to the Supreme Court
No, the geofencing warrant process has not been taken to the Supreme Court as of now. The ruling in *Chatrie v. United States* has set a significant precedent, but the Supreme Court has not yet addressed the constitutionality of geofencing warrants.
Would you like information on the potential implications if it were to reach the Supreme Court?
Please give me the potential implications that may be addresses before the Supreme Court concerning geofence warrants and the privacy rights of citizens being protected from overbroad searches without individual probable cause
Potential implications before the Supreme Court could include:
- Clarification on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Determination of the specificity required in geofence warrants to avoid being overbroad.
- Establishment of standards for probable cause in digital searches.
- Impact on law enforcement practices and privacy rights.
Would you like more details on any of these implications?
Is the fog portal being used by the TBI legal during investigation procedures
The legality of the FOG portal used by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) during investigation procedures depends on specific factors such as methods, data collection, and adherence to legal standards.
Could you provide more details on how the FOG portal is being used in your situation?
TBI used fog data science and fog portal to generate a list of advertising ids in the area of a crime , this cant be legal is it
The legality of using the FOG portal to generate advertising IDs in an area of a crime hinges on several factors:
- Compliance with the Fourth Amendment regarding unreasonable searches and seizures.
- Whether a warrant was obtained and the specificity of that warrant.
- The method of data collection and its adherence to legal standards.
Would you like information on challenging this practice legally?
What cases would support the legality of these investigatory techniques when geting information stored in a cloud without the explicit concent of a person. The TBI is an agency, not a company using advertising ids for advetising purposes
To support the legality of investigatory techniques for obtaining information stored in the cloud without explicit consent, here are some relevant cases and principles:
- United States v. Warshak (*): Held that the government must obtain a warrant based on probable cause to access emails stored by a third-party service provider.
- Riley v. California (*): Established that warrantless searches of digital information on cell phones during an arrest are unconstitutional.
- Carpenter v. United States (*): Ruled that accessing historical cell phone records requires a warrant.
Would you like more specific details on any of these cases or principles?
Any specific cases related to the TBI using this technique and it being illegal or unconstitutional
There aren't specific cases directly involving the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) using the FOG portal and it being ruled illegal or unconstitutional. However, the principles from notable cases like *Carpenter v. United States* and *Riley v. California* could be applicable.
Would you like more information on these principles or advice on how to challenge this practice?
Could this be an infringment of rights afforded through our constitution when TBI obtains and stores this information without explicit concent
Yes, obtaining and storing information without explicit consent could potentially infringe on constitutional rights. Key points include:
- Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- The need for a warrant based on probable cause (as established in *Carpenter v. United States* and *Riley v. California*).
Would you like guidance on how to challenge this practice legally?