Court Upholds Sentence in Rutherford County Case Despite Petitioner's Claims
By [Author Name]

MURFREESBORO, TN — Joseph George Schenck, 48, lost his appeal in a Tennessee court after claiming his sentence was illegal because he was not told he had to serve 75% of it before qualifying for work release or rehabilitation programs. Schenck also argued that his sentence was invalid because he did not sign the final judgment forms.

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals disagreed, upholding the decision made by Judge Barry Tidwell in Rutherford County. Judge Camille R. McMullen wrote in the court’s opinion that Schenck failed to show that his sentence was unauthorized or violated state law. The court found that just because a defendant doesn’t sign a judgment form, that doesn’t automatically make the sentence void.

Schenck has a lengthy legal history that includes multiple DUI convictions, probation violations, and other charges such as harassment and misuse of 911. Over several years, he pleaded guilty to a series of offenses, some in general sessions court and others in circuit court. His most recent sentences included language requiring him to serve 75% of his time before being eligible for work release or rehabilitation, as allowed under Tennessee law.

Schenck filed a motion in May 2024 to correct what he claimed was an illegal sentence. But the trial court ruled that his argument didn’t meet the standards of Rule 36.1, which allows for sentence corrections only when a sentence is not authorized by law.

Schenck also previously filed a petition saying his guilty pleas were involuntary and that he had received poor legal help, but that petition is being handled separately under the Post-Conviction Relief Act.

In her opinion, Judge McMullen concluded: “Based on the foregoing reasoning and analysis, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”

Source: Nos. 86066, 86542, 89169, 89147