ÿWPCû 7# U> %[ 0íaUBN4¤n­³U:`w@šÚ 01â 0D 0@W 0J— 0Tá 0^5 0h“ 0rû 0|m 0†é 0o 1uÿ 0dt BØ D3õ U6( U.^ AQŒ ÆÝ 0D£ 0Dç D/+ BZU*wB)¡DCÊ AM †ZÊàv~ªvÓ(˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ<èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(ÅÕÐ$¡¡Ñ  ÑÑ7€'CXXdÈXXdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓ<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi§aö"3|xË«<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXxþ6X@ÉJQX@,†r‰AZ‹"Arial Regular ·D¸¹º»D¼½¾¿Ó€Ë(á(3AÉ$¤¤Ý ƒÕÐ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ7€ÛÁXXdÈXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÓiU°X` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#€%Ø'0*ˆ,à.813è5@8˜:ð<H? A°œXiÓÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d 'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(Courier New< Œ 9p`(Courier*+,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d00007Border 1dd*1Cþÿ << Gÿÿ |Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌò òAugust€28,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€/ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ÀÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÔ€/ÔÔ€/ôÔÑ7ÀÛÁXXdÈXXdð7Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó€Contrary€to€the€majority€opinionððs€view€that€the€petition€was€actually€filed€too€late,€IÏbelieve€it€was€filed€too€early.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€'ÔÑ  ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ#€((Xd#ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °˜XÓÝ  Ý›Ñ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€/ÔÑ7€ \‡ XXdæXXdÈ7ќـ*ÙßR€231A1-j|šÿÿ` Å `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌ€à8 àà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ à€€€€€€€€€AT€JACKSONà@ à€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€DECEMBER€1996€SESSIONÌÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)à àÌ€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee,€à àà à)à àNo.€02C01„9507„CC„00204Ìà à€€€€€à àà à€€à à)Ìà àà àà àà à)à àChester€CountyÌv.à àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà à)à àHonorable€John€Franklin€Murchison,€JudgeÌà àà àà àà à)ÌVAUGHN€MIXON,à àà à€€€à à)à à€(Direct€Appeal/Writ€of€Error€Coram€Nobis)Ìà àà àà àà à)€€€€€€€€Ìà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÓÓà@ àò òòòDISSENTING€OPINIONóóó óÌà àà àà àà àÌà àI€respectfully€disagree€with€the€result€reached€in€the€majority€opinion€byÏwhich€this€case€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€relative€to€theÏpetition€for€writ€of€error€coram€nobis.€€I€believe€that€the€petition€was,€and€remains,Ïprematurely€filed€and€that€we€should€rule€upon€the€merits€of€the€defendantððs€appeal€inÏhis€convicting€case.€€ÌÌà àThe€case€before€us€presents€a€consolidated€appeal€of€the€defendantððsÏconvictions€and€sentences€with€his€later€filed€coram€nobis€petition.€€The€judgments€ofÍconviction€were€entered€in€March€1995€and€both€the€order€denying€a€new€trial€and€theÏnotice€of€appeal€were€entered€in€April€1995.€€At€that€point,€the€case€was€within€theÏjurisdiction€of€the€court€of€criminal€appeals.€€The€coram€nobis€petition€was€filed€inÏDecember€1995€and€denied€in€March€1996.€€The€notice€of€appeal€from€the€denial€wasÏfiled€in€April€1996€and€this€court€consolidated€the€two€appeals€at€the€defendantððsÏrequest.€€ÌÌà àThe€majority€opinion€undertakes€only€a€review€of€the€coram€nobis€issues.€ÏHowever,€I€believe€that€the€only€justiciable€issues€before€us€are€those€presented€in€theÏdefendantððs€appeal€of€his€judgments€of€conviction.€€ÌÌà àA€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€may€be€pursued€relative€to€a€criminal€caseÏconviction,€but€it€is€generally€to€be€governed€by€the€rules€and€procedure€applicable€toÏcivil€coram€nobis€cases.€€T.C.A.€ðð€40„26„105.€€In€this€respect,€the€writ€ð ðmay€be€hadÏòòwithin€one€(1)€year€after€the€judgment€becomes€finalóó€.€.€.€.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€27„7„103Ï(emphasis€added).€€The€finality€of€the€judgments€before€us€awaits€the€outcome€of€theÏdirect€appeal.€€Thus,€a€coram€nobis€writ€may€not€yet€issue.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThis€leaves€us€to€decide€the€defendantððs€issues€presented€in€the€directÏappeal.€€In€that€appeal,€the€defendant€asserts€the€following:ÌÓÓÓ  Óà8 à(1)€the€evidence€is€insufficient€to€support€the€verdict;ÌÌà8 à(2)€it€was€error€to€allow€both€the€attempted€rape€and€sexualÏbattery€convictions€to€stand€based€upon€a€single€touching;ÌÌà8 à(3)€it€was€error€to€admit€the€defendantððs€prior€conviction€forÏsexual€battery€and€error€to€reject€a€mistrial€when€theÏprosecutor€elicited€a€response€from€the€victim€in€violation€ofÏa€prior€court€order;ÌÌà8 à(4)€it€was€error€to€deny€a€new€trial€ð ðin€light€of€jurorððsÏrelationship€with€victimððs€œmother;ðð›ÌÌà8 à(5)€it€was€error€to€deny€a€new€trial€because€a€friend€of€theÏvictimððs€family€left€the€courtroom€during€testimony€andÏreported€the€testimony€to€the€victimððs€mother,€who€was€aÏwitness;ÌÌà8 à(6)€the€trial€court€imposed€an€excessive€sentence.ÌÌÓÓÓ  ÓÌà àAs€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€convicting€evidence,€the€defendant€arguesÏnothing€to€point€out€any€weakness€in€the€proof,€and€under€the€appellate€reviewÏstandard,€I€see€no€weakness€regarding€sufficiency.€€However,€I€do€believe€thatÏconvictions€for€both€attempted€rape€and€sexual€battery€should€not€stand€in€light€of€theÏdouble€jeopardy€analysis€provided€in€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373€(Tenn.€1996).€ÏThe€defendant€placing€his€hand€on€the€victimððs€inner€thigh€and€making€a€statement€ofÏdesire€constituted€the€essential€evidence€for€both€offenses.€€Only€one€victim€wasÍinvolved€and€both€the€attempted€rape€and€sexual€battery€statutes€are€intended€to€deterÏsexually€assaultive€conduct.€€Under€these€circumstances,€the€sexual€battery€convictionÏshould€merge€into€the€attempted€rape€conviction,€it€involving€the€greater€offense.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Davisóó,€613€S.W.2d€œ218,€220›€œ(Tenn.›€1981).ÌÌà àAs€for€the€stateððs€use€of€the€defendantððs€1986€sexual€battery€convictionÏfor€impeachment€purposes,€the€record€is€somewhat€unclear€about€what€actuallyÏoccurred.€€The€prosecutor€sought€to€introduce€three€prior€Mississippi€felony€convictionsÏfor€impeaching€the€defendant:€(1)€a€1978€burglary€„„€three€years,€(2)€a€1986€sexualÌbattery€„„€ten€years,€and€(3)€a€1981€marijuana€possession€„„€one€year.€€The€trial€courtÏconsidered€the€burglary€conviction€too€old€and€the€marijuana€conviction€of€ð ðdubiousÏvalueðð€and€prohibited€their€use.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€after€stating€that€the€prosecutor€could€ask€about€the€sexÏoffense,€the€trial€court€discussed€the€matter€with€defense€counsel€in€such€a€way€that€itÏindicated€that€it€was€ruling€that€the€sexual€battery€conviction€could€not€be€used€forÏimpeachment.€€In€fact,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€convictionððs€prejudicial€effect€farÏoutweighed€its€probative€value.€€Also,€it€stated€that€it€had€no€intention€of€allowing€theÏconviction€into€evidence€for€the€purpose€of€affecting€the€defendantððs€credibility,Ïalthough€it€noted€that€it€may€allow€the€conviction€substantively€under€the€existingÏcircumstances€if€they€involved€issues€of€motive,€intent€or€the€like.€€ÌÌà àHowever,€after€the€defendant€testified€on€direct€examination,€the€firstÏquestion€in€the€stateððs€cross„examination€elicited€the€fact€that€the€defendant€wasÏconvicted€in€Mississippi€of€sexual€battery€in€1986.€€There€was€neither€an€objection€norÏa€request€for€a€limiting€instruction€at€that€time,€nor€was€one€given.€€At€the€end€of€theÏcase,€the€prosecutor€argued€to€the€jury€that€the€conviction€impeached€the€defendantððsÏtestimony€so€that€he€was€not€to€be€believed.€€After€closing€arguments,€the€trial€courtÏinstructed€the€jury€to€limit€consideration€of€the€conviction€in€its€deliberations€to€theÏissue€of€the€defendantððs€credibility.€€Finally,€I€note€that€at€the€motion€for€new€trialÏhearing,€the€trial€court€justified€the€convictionððs€admission€into€evidence€asÏimpeachment€of€the€defendantððs€credibility.€€ÌÌà àUnder€all€of€these€circumstances,€I€believe€that€the€record€essentiallyÏreflects€that€the€trial€court€admitted€the€conviction€for€impeachment€purposes€and€thatÏthe€defendant€adequately€preserved€the€issue€for€review€in€the€jury„out€hearing.€€In€thisÏrespect,€I€believe€that€the€state€should€not€have€been€allowed€to€impeach€theÏdefendant€with€the€prior€sexual€battery€conviction.€€In€òòState€v.€Barnardóó,€899€S.W.2dÏ617,€622€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€this€court€concluded€that€it€was€error€to€allow€theÏprosecutor€in€an€aggravated€sexual€battery€case€to€use€a€prior€conviction€for€sexualÏbattery€for€impeaching€the€defendant.€€The€court€noted€that€the€similarity€of€the€chargesÏwould€create€undue€prejudice€while€the€prior€conviction,€itself,€had€slight€probativeÍvalue€regarding€the€defendantððs€credibility.€€The€present€case€involves€the€sameÏproblems€and€I€believe€error€was€committed.€€Moreover,€I€believe€that€the€error€wasÏharmful€in€the€sense€that€the€case€boiled€down€to€the€defendantððs€testimony€againstÏthe€victimððs€testimony.€€Obviously,€the€victimððs€mother€and€the€deputiesðð€testimony€wasÏgenerally€corroborative€of€the€victimððs€account,€particularly€her€physical€and€emotionalÏstate,€but€it€did€not€contradict€the€defendantððs€account.€€Thus,€I€believe€that€the€sex„related€convictions€should€be€reversed.ÌÌà àAlthough€the€defendant€also€complains€about€the€trial€courtððs€failure€toÏgrant€a€mistrial,€his€brief€does€not€cite€to€the€record,€argue,€or€otherwise€disclose€anyÏdetail€or€discussion€about€the€relevant€events.€€This€ð ðissueðð€is€waived.ÌÌà àAs€to€the€two€remaining€issues€relative€to€trial€error,€I€see€nothing€thatÏwarrants€reversal.€€As€for€the€claimed€improper€contact€with€the€juror,€the€defendantÏhas€€shown€neither€impropriety€nor€prejudice.€€When€a€jury€is€not€sequestered,€as€inÏthis€case,€the€defendant€must€prove€more€than€just€mingling€before€the€burden€shifts€toÏthe€state€to€prove€the€lack€of€prejudice.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Blackwellóó,€664€S.W.2d€686,€688Ï(Tenn.€1984).€€Again,€relative€to€the€claimed€violation€of€the€witness€sequestration€rule,Ïòòseeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€615,€although€the€defendant€proved€that€a€friend€of€the€victimððsÏmother,€who€was€a€sequestered€witness,€talked€with€the€victimððs€mother€during€trialÍbreaks,€there€was€no€evidence€of€the€substance€of€the€conversations.€€Thus,€there€isÏno€showing€of€a€violation€of€the€rule.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€as€for€sentencing,€I€agree€with€the€defendant€that€the€trial€courtÏshould€not€have€applied€enhancement€factor€(4),€regarding€the€victim€beingÏparticularly€vulnerable€because€of€her€age.€€The€thirteen„year„old€victim€was€able€toÏresist€the€defendant,€summon€help,€and€testify€at€the€trial.€€The€state€presented€nothingÏto€reflect€that€she€was€òòparticularlyóó€vulnerable€because€of€some€age„related€limitation.€ÏòòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòState€v.€Pooleóó,€945€S.W.2d€93,€96„98€(Tenn.€1997).€€ÌÌà àOn€the€other€hand,€I€disagree€with€the€defendantððs€contention€that€the€trialÏcourt€should€not€have€applied€enhancement€factor€(15),€regarding€an€abuse€ofÏposition€of€private€trust,€to€the€attempted€incest€sentencing.€€The€defendant€claims€thatÏthe€factor€is€an€essential€element€of€the€attempted€incest€because€both€rely€upon€theÏfact€that€the€defendant€is€the€victimððs€father.€€However,€incest€consists€solely€ofÏengaging€in€sexual€penetration€with€a€person€known€to€be€within€a€designated€kinshipÏrange,€including€a€child.€€òòSeeóó€T.C.A.€ðð€39„15„302(a).€€As€for€enhancement€factor€(15),Ïthe€mere€fact€that€the€defendant€is€the€victimððs€father€does€not€justify€its€application.€€ItÏis€the€actual€nature€of€the€relationship,€including€legal€duties,€that€may€form€a€positionÏof€trust.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€œ488„89›€(Tenn.€1996).€€Thus,€aÏposition€of€trust€is€not€an€element€of€an€incest„related€offense.€€ÌÌà àDespite€the€trial€courtððs€inappropriate€consideration€of€enhancementÏfactor€(4),€it€properly€relied€upon€the€defendantððs€history€of€criminal€convictions€andÏbehavior,€enhancement€factor€(1),€and€his€abuse€of€trust,€enhancement€factor€(15).€ÏGiven€the€fact€that€his€prior€history€includes€drinking„related€offenses€and€a€sexualÏassault,€circumstances€shown€to€exist€in€the€present€case,€the€prior€convictions€andÏconduct€are€entitled€to€substantial€weight.€€Considering€the€foregoing€with€the€fact€thatÏno€mitigating€circumstances€were€found€by€the€trial€court€to€exist,€I€see€nothing€wrongÏwith€the€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àIn€conclusion,€I€would€reverse€the€convictions€for€the€attempted€rape,Ïattempted€incest,€and€sexual€battery€and€remand€the€case€for€a€new€trial.€€Moreover,€IÏwould€dismiss€the€writ€of€error€coram€nobis€case€as€being€prematurely€filed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àJoseph€M.€Tipton,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌà8 àÌ