JACKSON, Tenn. — The Tennessee Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in the case of Pervis Payne, a man who has been incarcerated for 37 years in a Memphis-area murder. As it stands now he could now be eligible for parole in less than two years, something the state is now appealing.  In 1988, Payne was convicted of killing Millington mother 28-year-old Charisse Christopher and her 2-year-old daughter Lacie. Her 3-year-old son Nicholas survived multiple stab wounds.  But all of these years, Payne has maintained his innocence. In 2021 the Tennessee General Assembly amended a state code for inmates on death row to provide a process to show they are intellectually disabled. After evaluation it was deemed Payne was no longer eligible for the death penalty. He was then re-sentenced in a trial court, but the state says he should spend the rest of his life in prison, which is what attorneys made their cases about Wednesday. Appeals court affirms Pervis Payne parole eligibility Loved ones from both sides were present for the hearing, as five justices heard about one hour of arguments. The question is, how should Payne, who was not in the courtroom for discussions Wednesday, serve the rest of his conviction. After Payne was deemed intellectually disabled, it was decided Payne would serve two life sentences — but would it be consecutively, or concurrently, at the same time?  In 2021 a new sentencing hearing was held in a Shelby County courtroom, where witnesses testified on his behalf as well as prosecutors. After the hearing Judge Paula Skahan decided he would serve the rest of his sentence concurrently. Then District Attorney Amy Weirich said she asked the State Attorney General's Office to appeal the ruling. ► More coverage: Pervis Payne case Wednesday an attorney made the case against the judge's decision, saying he should spend the rest of his life in prison.  "The trial court exceeded its limited jurisdiction on an Intellectual Disability Statute. Nothing in the text or history of the statute authorized sentence realignment," attorney Alan Groves said. "The trial court only had the inherent power to reduce the death sentences to life in prison." Payne's attorney argued against claims the judge exceeded jurisdiction.  "The criminal court here did not abuse her discretion," said Payne's attorney, Kelley Henry. "The state has never contended that Judge Skahan's findings of fact were untrue, to the contrary and in fact if you look at the transcript from the hearing you will see that her decision is well supported by two days of testimony including testimony from every single warden at the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. That Mr. Payne is not only not a threat he has an unblemished record." Relatives declined to speak about the case Wednesday. A timeline for when the justices could make their decision about the appeal is unclear.