RUTHERFORD COUNTY, Tenn. — The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has rejected an appeal by Joseph George Schenck, who argued that his sentence in multiple criminal cases was illegal due to not being informed he was required to serve 75% of it before qualifying for work release or rehabilitation programs.

Schenck’s legal troubles began in 2016 when he was convicted of a first-offense DUI in Rutherford County and sentenced to eleven months and twenty-nine days, with thirty-five days to serve. He later pleaded guilty to a second DUI in 2019, receiving a partially suspended sentence, and additional charges followed in subsequent years, including violation of bond conditions, harassment, misuse of 911, and domestic assault.

In total, Schenck entered multiple guilty pleas in both general sessions and circuit court, accumulating a complex web of probationary and custodial sentences. Several of these cases—particularly in circuit court—contained a stipulation requiring him to serve 75% of his sentence before being eligible for certain privileges, such as work release and rehabilitative programs. These conditions were included in the signed judgment forms.

In May 2024, Schenck filed a motion to correct what he claimed were illegal sentences, arguing that the 75% requirement had not been announced in open court and that he did not knowingly agree to it. He also contended that certain misdemeanor judgment forms are typically left blank in such areas and therefore presumed not to include the restriction.

The Rutherford County trial court, presided over by Judge Barry R. Tidwell, denied the motion, finding that the sentences were legal under Tennessee law. The court held that any misunderstanding regarding sentencing terms would be an issue of ineffective counsel, not a procedural illegality.

Schenck appealed that decision, but Judge Camille R. McMullen of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The appellate court concluded that Schenck’s claim was not valid under Tennessee Rule of Criminal Procedure 36.1, and therefore his appeal was dismissed. The Clerk of the Appellate Courts officially filed the decision on Friday, May 2, 2025.