WPC JTIʘz˘zU5(П8ƔTՐ_#bCFpf,~ۗǸSj2 .Tr%L#DR_lEU^LNk9Tow}f"uX}' ZyJJ]_Y0$cq漠 Ò́h)(&m"Jk&ö3Sيӡ:zʒ\:A^Qsx:G'VZeIpkv,5CH&f\8Cp?Ъzz"&v7|GHwJ|юmyin1[5;F ק]IěZցS` Uuk@k@ۻs4wwSWCr0O_3b %\^ b 0nU NwD4H\ zk m    d * # NEb 0 B 0 D5q D- 0K ASq 07 0D AN1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularJ1:i+003|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL6V,,,,V0- -(|G2$ !.8Udd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Udd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Udd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Udd8     _  8cXXdd8@hh8INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#U8#Ԉ  @j j AssignedonBriefsJanuary6,2004  @ STATEOFTENNESSEEv.RICKYGROVERAARON   XcXU@  AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty   @ No.99D2360WalterKurtz,Judge q  @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  i  @J J No.M200202288CCAR3CDFiledDecember13,_2004_Ԉ  J  AV) ` dE<` A       `  ThomasT.Woodall,J.,concurring.   w  IconcurwithJudgeSmithsleadopinion;however,Iamwritingseparatelyfortworeasons. G  First,Ihavereconsidered,anduponfurtherreflection,retreatfrommyearlierpositionthatsentences 0 foundtobeinviolationofBlakelyshouldberemandedforanewsentencinghearinginthetrial  court.UntilsuchtimeasthereisclearauthorityforourcourtstodealwithBlakelyissues,whether  bycaselaworbystatute,judicialeconomyandsentencingconsiderations,includinguniformityof  applicationofsentencingfactors,dictatesthatmostsentencesfoundtobeinviolationofBlakely  shouldbemodified,ifatall,bytheappellatecourts.Clearly,theappellatecourtshavebeengiven m theauthoritytodosobythelegislature.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035401(c). V   Second,Iwanttoexpressmyconcernandreservationsofthewaiverassertionsarguedby I theStateandadoptedbymyesteemedcolleague,JudgeHayes.PreBlakely,thestatusofthelaw 2 inTennesseeasestablishedbyoursupremecourtsopinioninGrahamv.State,90S.W.3d,687  (Tenn.2002),isclearlysetforthinJudgeSmithsopinion.     Inthecasesubjudice(andinvirtuallyeveryothercaseondirectappealdealingwiththe W  Blakelyissue)theStateassertsthat thisissueisnowwaivedforconsiderationinthiscasesince @  thedefendantcouldhavepreviouslyraisedtheissueunderApprendi,justasMr.Blakelydid,inthe ) y! trialcourtandonappealtothisCourtinhisappellatebriefs.AssumingthatMr.Aaroninthiscase !b" hadarguedinthetrialcourt,underApprendi,thatnoenhancementfactorotherthanprior !K# convictionscouldbeappliedabsentajuryfinding,thetrialcourt,andthisCourt(priortotheU.S. "4$ SupremeCourtsopinioninBlakely)wouldhavebeenobligatedtorejectthatissueunderGraham. #% InHolderv.TennesseeJudicialSelection,937S.W.2d877(Tenn.1996),oursupremecourtstated: $ & 8  Weobserve,however,thattrialcourtsmustfollowthedirectivesofsuperiorcourts, Y&!( particularlywhenthesuperiorcourthasgivendefiniteexpressiontoitsviewsina B'") caseaftercarefulconsideration.[citationsomitted].Accordingly, inferiorcourts  +({#* arenotfreetodisregard,onthebasisthatthestatementisobiterdictum,the )g$+ pronouncementofasuperiorcourtwhenitspeaksdirectlyonthematterbeforeit, *P%, particularlywhenthesuperiorcourtseekstogiveguidancetothebenchandbar.To *9&- dootherwiseinviteschaosintothesystemofjustice.+"'.   Holder,937S.W.2dat88182.(Emphasisinboldtypeadded). u-(0 Ї  Furthermore,itisnecessarytonotethatthefocalpointofBlakelyistheconstitutionalright  tojurytrial,andnotthestrengthofevidenceofenhancementfactors,otherthanthattheproofmust  beestablishedbeyondareasonabledoubt.ThereisnoclearstatutoryauthorityinTennesseefora  jurytodeterminetheapplicabilityofanyenhancementfactor.Therefore,ifMr.Aaronhadprevailed k inraisingtheApprendiissueinthetrialcourtand/oronappeal,surelytheremedywouldnothave T beentostillhavethetrialcourtdeterminetheexistenceofanenhancementfactor,subjecttothe =  hypotheticaldeterminationofwhetheranonexistentjurywouldhavealsofoundthesame & v enhancementfactorbeyondareasonabledoubt.ThemajorityopinioninBlakelyclosedwiththe  _ followingstatement:  H 8  TheFramerswouldnothavethoughtittoomuchtodemandthat,beforedepriving    amanofthreemoreyearsofhisliberty,theStateshouldsufferthemodest   inconvenienceofsubmittingitsaccusationto theunanimoussuffrageoftwelveof   hisequalsandneighbors,4Blackstone,Commentaries,at343,ratherthanalone   employeeoftheState.n    Blakely,124S.Ct.at2543. @   TheconclusionthatBlakelyerrorsinTennesseearerarely,ifever,harmlesserrorbeyond b areasonabledoubt,issupportedbycaselaw. K   InSullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275,113S.Ct.2078,124L.Ed.2d182(1993),theissue  waswhethera constitutionallydeficientreasonabledoubtinstructionmaybeharmlesserror.The  Stateconcededthatthe reasonabledoubtinstructiongivenbythetrialcourtinthisfirstdegree  murdercasewasessentiallyidenticaltothesameinstructionheldunconstitutionalinCagev.  Louisiana,498U.S.39,111S.Ct.328,112L.Ed.2d.339(1990)(percuriam).TheSupremeCourt q ofLouisianaheldthattheerroneousinstructioninSullivanwasharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt, Z andupheldtheconviction.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtthereaftergrantedcertiorari.The C SupremeCourtheldthattheconstitutionallydeficientinstructioncouldnotbeharmlesserror.The ,| followingquotefromSullivanisparticularlypertinenttothesituationinthecasesubjudice,where e nojuryinTennesseehasevermade(andunderpresentstatutoryprocedurearguablycouldnever N make)thefactualdeterminationthatanenhancementfactor(s)exists:  7 8  Consistentwiththejurytrialguarantee,thequestion[Chapmanv.California,386 " ! U.S.18,87S.Ct.824,17L.Ed.2d705(1967)]instructsthereviewingcourtto #" considerisnotwhateffecttheconstitutionalerrormightgenerallybeexpectedto $# haveuponareasonablejury,butratherwhateffectithadupontheguiltyverdictin t% $ thecaseathand.SeeChapman,supra,386U.S.,at24,87S.Ct.,at828(analyzing ]&!% effectoferroron verdictobtained).Harmlesserrorreviewlooks,wehavesaid, F'"& tothebasisonwhich thejuryactuallyresteditsverdict.Yatesv.Evatt,500U.S. /(#' 391,404,111S.Ct.1884,1893,114L.Ed.2d432(1991)(emphasisadded).The )h$( inquiry,inotherwords,isnotwhether,inatrialthatoccurredwithouttheerror,a *Q%) guiltyverdictwouldsurelyhavebeenrendered,butwhethertheguiltyverdict *:&* actuallyrenderedinthistrialwassurelyunattributabletotheerror.Thatmustbeso, +#'+ becausetohypothesizeaguiltyverdictthatwasneverinfactrenderednomatter  howinescapablethefindingstosupportthatverdictmightbewouldviolatethe  jurytrialguarantee.See Rosev.Clark,478U.S.570,578,106S.Ct.3101,3105,92  L.Ed.2d460(1986);id.,at593,106S.Ct.,at3114(BLACKMUN,J.,dissenting); k Popev.Illinois,481U.S.497,509510,107S.Ct.1918,1926,95L.Ed.2d439 T (1987)(STEVENS,J.,dissenting).=    8   ` OncetheproperroleofanappellatecourtengagedintheChapmaninquiry  _ isunderstood,theillogicofharmlesserrorreviewinthepresentcasebecomes  H evident. Since,forthereasonsdescribedabove,therehasbeennojuryverdict  1  withinthemeaningoftheSixthAmendment,theentirepremiseofChapman    reviewissimplyabsent. Therebeingnojuryverdictofguiltybeyondareasonable   doubt,thequestionwhetherthesameverdictofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubt   wouldhavebeenrenderedabsenttheconstitutionalerrorisutterlymeaningless.   Thereisnoobject,sotospeak,uponwhichharmlesserrorscrutinycanoperate. The u  mostanappellatecourtcanconcludeisthatajurywouldsurelyhavefound a  petitionerguiltybeyondareasonabledoubtnotthatthejurysactualfinding K ofguiltybeyondareasonabledoubtwouldsurelynothavebeendifferentabsent 5 theconstitutionalerror .Thatisnotenough.SeeYates,supra,500U.S.,at413 o 414,111S.Ct.,at1898(SCALIA,J.,concurringinpartandconcurringinjudgment).  [  TheSixthAmendmentrequiresmorethanappellatespeculationabouta D hypotheticaljurysaction,orelsedirectedverdictsfortheStatewouldbe . sustainableonappeal ;itrequiresanactualjuryfindingofguilty.SeeBollenback  v.UnitedStates,326U.S.607,614,66S.Ct.402,405,90L.Ed.350(1946).   Sullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.at27980,113S.Ct.at208182.(Emphasisinboldtypeadded).    Insummary,weareobligatedtofollowprecedentclearlysetforthbytheTennesseeSupreme X Court,Holder,exceptwheretheholdingoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtisindirectcontravention A ofaholdingbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtconcerningarightundertheUnitedStates *z Constitution.SeeTerryv.State,46S.W.3d147,160(Tenn.2001);Statev.Carruthers,35S.W.3d  c 516,561n.45(Tenn.2000)(theTennesseeSupremeCourtisnotboundbyanyfederalcourt  L decisionsotherthanthoseoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.) !5    TheappellantinthecasesubjudiceraisedtheApprendiissueinaverytimelymannerafter #" theBlakelydecisionwasfiled.Theissue,therefore,shouldnotbeconsideredwaived.Toconclude $# that,iferror,itwasharmlesserrorbeyondareasonabledoubt,requiresacceptingthatahypothetical % $ jury,whichwouldhavenoclearstatutoryauthoritytodetermineanythingmorethanguiltor r&!% innocence,wouldhavefoundtheenhancementfactorsbeyondareasonabledoubt.Inotherwords, ['"& theStatearguesthatevenifDefendanthadnot waivedtheissueandhadbeenclairvoyantenough D(#' toseehowtheBlakelydecisionwouldbedecidedbeforeitwasfiled,hewouldbedeniedany -)}$( remedybecausetheStateofTennesseehadnotprovidedtheremedy:aprocedureforjury *f%) determinationoftheexistenceofenhancementfactors. *O&*  +8'+   Respectfully,inlightofSullivanv.Louisiana,Iamunabletoacceptthislogic.     `     h     ___________________________________ k    `     h     THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE