WPC)% UBV %U .nX 0P4 4  1m 0d wq 0 0D Y 0JY 0T 0^ 0hU 0r 0|/ 0 01 1u B6U,S 0dU, D3U6BB)x 0@DC AM$qm@v~5v 0 0 0 0? 0 0! 0" AO## 0D$ D/$ B %<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|XO<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  Sk  tuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$26.  0  3  0  AӀM(D(3$ !D      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a) d<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco 'dxd<  9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d("$    ,,,,7Border 1dd-.C << G  !!+ D       YYY FILEDX March20,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerk  c !#d#!+ D     $       ԀExamplesofcasesapprovingsuchasentencingstructureareStatev.Terry,755S.W.2d854(Tenn.Crim.App.1988);TerryL.Hicks,Jr.,v.State,No.02C019503CC00071,MadisonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedJanuary31,1996,atJackson);DarnellGentryv.State,No.02C019304CC00052,GibsonCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedJune29,1994,atJackson). 6 !#d#!+ D     $       ԀExamplesofcasesdisapprovingsuchasentencingstructureareRonaldLatureMcCrayv.State,No.02C019412CC00277,FayetteCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedSeptember27,1995,atJackson),andGeorgeCheairsv.State,No.02C019304CC00070,FayetteCounty(Tenn.Crim.App.filedOctober26,1994,atJackson).PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco (gfi$0  2(6.  0  .  0  3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2A   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xr$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2A(  0  )3  0 (# (#(U$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2A(  a  )3  0h(#(#(@$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2A(   )3  0h(#h(#(t$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2A  0  )3  0(#(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2A  a  )3  0p(#(#-C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . !&))Xd&#))Xd#+ D    ` \RA'\@ INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEL/0.;+'h|h` . `L@ ATJACKSON@ DECEMBER1995SESSION̛7XXdXXd7  BILLR.DIXON,JR.,   )      )  Appellant,    )      )      )VS.      ) C.C.A.NO.02C019503CC00070      )      )STATEOFTENNESSEE.   )       )  Appellee.   )  @ CONCURRINGOPINION     Iagreewiththemajoritysconclusionthatthepetitionerssentenceisillegaland,basedonpriordecisionsofourSupremeCourt,mustbesetaside.Iwriteseparately,however,toemphasizeapolicyconcernwhichIbelievehasbeenoverlookedinthedebateregardingwhetherasentenceinwhichthetermofimprisonmentdoesnotcorrespondtotherangeimposedmustbesetaside.  Themajoritycorrectlyframesthepreciseissuewhichconfrontsus,namely,whetheradefendantmaybelegallysentencedtoatermofimprisonmentwhich,althoughitfallswithintheentirerangeofauthorizedimprisonmentfortheparticularfelonyclass,doesnotcorrespondtothespecificrangeimposed.Asthemajoritypointsout,thisCourthashadconsiderabletroublewiththisissue.Infact,thisCourthasapprovedofsomesentencesinwhichthetermofimprisonmentdidnotcorrespondtotherangeimposed, 1   ׀buthasdisapprovedofotherindistinguishablesentences. 2   כ  TheTennesseeSupremeCourt,ontheotherhand,hasbeensomewhatmoreconsistentwithitstreatmentofthisissue.PerhapsthemostoftencitedcaseisStatev.Mahler,735S.W.2d226(Tenn.1987).InMahler,thedefendantpledguiltytoseconddegreemurderwithanagreedsentenceoffiftyyearsatRangeII.Mahler,735S.W.2dat227.Uponreview,however,itappearedfromtherecordthatthedefendantdidnotqualifyasaRangeIIoffender.Mahler,735S.W.2dat227.InaffirmingthesentencetheCourtstatedthatthedefendantsguiltypleawaivedanycomplaintregardinghisrangeclassification.OurSupremeCourtheldthatbecausethetermofimprisonmentwas withinstatutorylimitsfixedfortheoffenseofmurderintheseconddegree,thesentencewasnotillegal.Mahler,735S.W.2dat228(emphasisadded).TheCourtslanguageappearstofocustheinquiryonwhetherthetermofimprisonmentiswithintheentirerangeofpunishmentfortheoffense,notonwhetherthetermofimprisonmentandtherangeimposedcorrespondtoeachother.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatthedefendantsfiftyyeartermofimprisonmentwasnotonlywithinthestatutorylimitfixedfortheoffense,butalsowithintheappropriatepunishmentforaRangeIIoffender.  OurSupremeCourtrevisitedthisissue,albeitinadifferentproceduralposture,threeyearslaterinStatev.Russell,800S.W.2d169(Tenn.1990).InRussell,thedefendantwasconvictedofaggravatedrape(sexualpenetrationofachildunderthirteenyearsofage),incest,andcrimeagainstnature.Theageofthevictimwasallegedinthefirstcountbutnotinthesecondorthethirdcount.ThetrialcourtsentencedthedefendantasaRangeIoffendertotwentyyearsoneachcount,withallcountsconcurrent.Russell,800S.W.2dat169.ThetwentyyearsentencewaswithinRangeIforaggravatedrape,withinRangeIIforincest,andinexcessofthemaximumstatutorypunishmentforcrimeagainstnature.Russell,800S.W.2dat169170.Onappeal,theStateconcededthatthetwentyyearsentenceforcrimeagainstnaturewasillegal.YettheStatealsoarguedthatbecausetheseoffenseswereespeciallyaggravated,statutorysentencingguidelinesrequiredthatRangeIIsentencingbeimposed.Russell,800S.W.2dat170.TheCourtheldthattheStatesfailuretofilenoticeofintenttoseekRangeIIsentencingeffectivelywaivedRangeIIsentencingonboththeincestcountandthecrimeagainstnaturecount.Withrespecttotheaggravatedrape,however,theCourtheldthatnoticeofRangeIIsentencingwasgivenintheindictmentitselfbecausethatcountallegedtheageofthechild.Russell,800S.W.2dat172.BasedontheCourtsholding,thedefendantssentencesforboththeincestcountandthecrimeagainstnaturecountweremodifiedtofiveyearseachatRangeI.Russell,800S.W.2dat170.ThecasewasremandedtothetrialcourtfortheimpositionofaRangeIIsentenceonaggravatedrape.Russell,800S.W.2dat174.Basedonthesentencemodificationfortheincestconviction,itappearsthatRussellrequiresthetermofimprisonmentandtherangeimposedtocorrespondtoeachother.  ConfusionariseswithinRussell,however,fromthefollowingexplanationoftheholdinginMahler:   ` Inanothercontext,thisCourthasrecognizedthatRangesIandIIdonothavethesameforceasthepunishmentlimitssetbythepenalstatutes.InStatev.Mahler,735S.W.2d226(Tenn.1987),itwasheldthatadefendantcanwaive RangeIsentencinginanegotiatedplea,andtheresultingsentenceisnotillegalorvoidsolongasitiswithintheouterlimitsofthepenalstatutes. D   Russell,800S.W.2dat172.Thislanguageappearstoindicate,perhapscontrarytotheholdinginRussell,thatasentencesrangeclassificationanditstermofimprisonmentdonothavetocorrespondtoeachother.YetinkeepingwiththeholdinginRussell,itcouldbearguedthattheapplicationofthislanguageisrestrictedtonegotiatedpleas,aswasthecaseinMahler.    Thus,theteachingofMahlerandRussellappearstobe,notwithstandingsomelanguageseeminglyatoddswiththeholdings,thatasentencestermofimprisonmentandrangemustcorrespondtoeachother.  Applyingtheaboveconsiderationstothepresentcase,IamforcedtoagreewiththemajoritythatthedefendantsRangeIfiveyearsentenceforunlawfulpossessionofadeadlyweapon,whichactuallyfallswithinthepunishmentlimitsofRangeIII,isillegalandmustbesetaside.Onremand,asthemajorityindicates,proceedingsontheguiltypleashallbegovernedbyRule11(e)(2)orRule11(e)(4)oftheTennesseeRulesofCriminalProcedure.Iconcurwiththemajoritysdispositionofthecasebeforeus.  Yet,Idowishtovoiceaconcernovertheimplicationsofthisholding,sothatitsapplicationmightbetemperedbyreason.Inthepresentcase,thepetitionerwasindictedrelativelyrecently,onSeptember15,1992.If,uponremand,thepetitionerweretowithdrawhisguiltypleasandforcetheStatetoproceedtotrial,witnessesmemorieswouldhopefullystillbefreshandevidencewouldstillbeavailable.  Shouldthecasearise,however,inwhichaconsiderableperiodoftimehaspassedsinceanegotiatedpleaagreement,IbelievethattheStateslegitimateinterestinfinalitymightoutweighapetitionersinterestinsettingasidehisorherillegalsentencearrivedatthroughaknowing,intelligent,andvoluntaryguiltyplea.Insuchacase,thereexiststhedistinctpossibilitythatwitnessesmemorieswillhavefadedtosuchadegreeastomakeproceedingtotrialvirtuallyimpossible.Moreover,witnessesandevidencesimplymaynotbeavailable.Infact,evidencemayhaveevenbeendestroyedinaccordancewithlawenforcementprocedures.Undersuchcircumstances,apetitionersinterestinsettingasideanegotiatedsentence,whichmorethanlikelythepetitioneracceptedbecauseitwasbeneficialtohimorher,isminimalwhencomparedwiththeStatesinterestsinpreventingstalelitigationandexcessivecosts.  Havingexpressedmyconcernsregardingthesomewhatconfusingcaselawonthisissue,andthepotentiallybroadapplicationoftheholdinginthepresentcase,Iconcurwiththemajorityinallotherrespects.       ______________________________       JOHNH.PEAY,Judge