WPCT [@]ܶ\j794L=&=6$tkݶ=!Y:.dYTy\ɥE JyNHfnUÐ'>HW!FpPlD71{_e[ SR{Tݍ[ϕ c ^ ,Z9rEq*wKI W¬ZwD0zPnIBG>̃>6sBE^Y8\ sVMJl!u欷[ Нv3{ i䨡Ao@kR͘=I:UjSKw ޽ePNtf 7a!yr w12.6HCU7J\|(Z)<zz+8;S%!,qAw[8s*T)2Jsx]&ٷFY)HP/h&-LVE߽G+t6b %\U@b 0UN*^ xw4 z   m     f#,NUNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0OOOO B:: 0W D5 D-0 0K]] AS 0 0De A(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regulara1 J1:i+00 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.wpt3|xU Humphreys CrimRenneEfrenArellanoEstradaYoreckHagner S.CtGilliamBatcholderBatchelderBlakelyreviewable a]nAdkissonaffect[sSavareseRICKYEngleSchriroSummerlinenhancers Rptr t]heApprendiLevel 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(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2/$ !.8dd8         0  , d(|3$ !.8dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _    8XXdd8@hh, INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @gg$ATNASHVILLE#, #Ԉ # @j j AssignedonBriefsJanuary6,2004 F XX #XX#  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.RICKYGROVERAARON  ? U@ XX AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  ` @d d No.99D2360WalterKurtz,Judge  J @*AV) ` dE<` A߈   @J J No.M200202288CCAR3CDFiledDecember13,_2004_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<` A    #XX#XX.DavidG.Hayes,Judge,dissenting,withregardtosentencingmodification.    Themajorityconcludesthatmodificationoftheappellantselevenyearsentenceisrequired o inlightofBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.__,124S.Ct.2531(2004).Imustrespectfullydissent. X   AnysentencingchallengeavailabletotheappellantunderBlakelyisnowwaivedbecause *z theappellantdidnotobjectattrialtowhathenowcontendsisaconstitutionallyinvalidsentencing c scheme.Tenn.R.App.P.36(a).InBlakely,theSupremeCourtclarifiedandextendedtherule L previouslyexpressedinApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,120S.Ct.2348(2000),withregard 5 totheterm statutorymaximum.Clearly,theappellantcouldhaveraisedthisissueunderApprendi  atthetriallevelasdidthedefendantBlakely;however,thiswasnotdone.Themajorityopinesthat  thesupremecourtsholdinginGrahamv.State,90S.W.3d687,692(Tenn.2002),noperm.toapp.  filed,excusestheappellantsfailuretoraisethisissueatthetriallevel.Idisagree.Trialcounsel  maynotforgoanobjectiontoatrialdefectsimplybecausehethoughttheobjectionwouldbefutile. r  Englev.Isaac,456U.S.107,130n.35,102S.Ct.1558,1573n.35(1982)(citationsomitted). [!  Futilitycannotconstitutecauseifitmeanssimplythataclaimwasunacceptabletothatparticular D"! courtatthatparticulartime.Id.Evenastatecourtthathaspreviouslyrejectedaconstitutional -#}" argumentmaydecide,uponreflection,thatthecontentionisvalid.Id.at130,102S.Ct.at1573. $f# Certainlythepracticeofpresentingpreviouslyrejectedclaimsisclearlyimplantedincapitalcase $O $ litigationinthisstate.Iseenovalidreasontocarveoutan_Apprendi_/Blakelyexceptiontothis %8!% establishedpractice.InUnitedStatesv.Cotton,535U.S.625,63134,122S.Ct.1781,178587 &!"& (2002),theSupremeCourtheld,afteritsdecisioninApprendi,thatthedefendantsclaimofright ' #' toatrialandfindingbyajuryonafactusedtoenhancethedefendantssentencewasforfeited (#( becauseitwasnotraisedattrial.Moreover,theSupremeCourthasheld )$) 8  (1)theApprendiruleisnotasubstantiverulethatalterstherangeofconductorthe ^+&+ classofpersonsthatthelawpunishes;rather,itisaproceduralrulethataffectsonly G,', themannerofdeterminingthedefendantsculpability,and(2)theApprendiruleis 0-(-Y _nota watershedruleofcriminalprocedurethatimplicatesthefundamentalfairness  andaccuracyofcriminalproceedings.   Peoplev.GeorgeCarlSample,122Cal.App.4th206,220,18Cal.Rptr.3d611,620(Cal.Ct.App. k 2004)(quotingSchrirov.Summerlin,__U.S.__,124S.Ct.2519,252021(2004)).Reviewand T modificationoftheappellantssentenceforthefirsttimeonappealnotonlyhastheeffectof =  removingthetrialcourtastheprimarysentencingcourt,italsodeniestheStatetheopportunityto & v beheardinthesentencingdecision.X XXXԀAccordingly,IfindtheBlakelyissuewaived.  _   Becausetheissueiswaived,itisreviewableonlyunderthediscretionaryauthorityofplain  1  error.Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(b).Rule52(b)provides, [a]nerrorwhichhasaffectedthesubstantial    rightsofanaccusedmaybenoticedatanytime,eventhoughnotraisedinthemotionforanewtrial   orassignedaserroronappeal,inthediscretionoftheappellatecourtwherenecessarytodo   substantialjustice.Thiscourtispermittedtocorrectanerrornotraisedbeforethetrialcourtonly   when(1)thelowerrecordisclear,(2)aclearruleoflawhasbeenbreached,(3)asubstantialright n  hasbeenaffected,(4)thewaiverwasnontactical,and(5)considerationoftheerrorisnecessaryto W  dosubstantialjustice.Statev.Smith,24S.W.3d274,28283(Tenn.2000)(adoptingthetest @ articulatedbythiscourtinStatev.Adkisson,899S.W.2d626,642(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)).The )y asserted plainerrormust[havebeen]ofsuchagreatmagnitudethatitprobablychangedthe b outcomeofthetrial.Adkisson,899S.W.2dat642. K   ApplyingBlakely,themajorityconcludesthattwostatutorysentencingenhancersare  inapplicable:(1) [t]heoffenseinvolvedavictimandwascommittedtogratifythedefendants  desireforpleasureorexcitement,and(2) [t]hedefendantabusedapositionofpublicorprivate  trust...SeeTenn.CodeAnn.4035114(8),(16)(2003).First,assumingthattheerrorisplain,  myreviewandthatofmycolleaguesinthemajorityopinionconcludedthatthesentencingproof q supportedapplicationoffactors(8)and(16).Again,Ifindtheproofattrialsupportedthesefactors Z andwouldhavepermittedarationaltrieroffacttohavefoundthattheappellantabusedaposition C oftrustandthattheoffensewascommittedtogratifytheappellantsdesireforpleasureor ,| excitement.Inviewofthesecircumstances,theappellanthasfailedtoestablishthatconsideration e oftheerroris necessarytodosubstantialjusticeorthattheallegederrorchangedtheoutcomeof N thesentencingdecision.#XX XX!#SeeUnitedStatesv.StephenSavarese,2004U.S.App.LEXIS19824,No.  7 041009(1stD.Sept.22,2004). !   X XXXԀ8   ` ThereasoningoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinCottonissimilarto,but #" notidenticalwith,harmlesserroranalysis.Thecourtpreviouslyhadexplainedthat $# invariablytorefusetoconsidererrorswhennoobjectionwasmadewouldbeoutof t% $ harmonywithrulesoffundamentaljustice.Accordingly,ifthedefendantpointsto ]&!% plainerrorthataffectedsubstantialrights,thenanappellatecourthasdiscretionto F'"& correcttheerror.Normally,althoughperhapsnotineverycase,thedefendantmust /(#' makeaspecificshowingofprejudicetosatisfythe affectingsubstantialrights )h$( prongofRule52(b).Butsuchashowingisnotitselfsufficient.Anappellatecourt *Q%) shouldnotcorrecttheerrorunlessit seriouslyaffect[s]thefairness,integrityor *:&* publicreputationofjudicialproceedings.+#'+   Ї8   ` ItwasthislattertesttheSupremeCourtappliedinCotton,concludingthat  whenthedefendantsdidnotobjectinthedistrictcourttothesentencingproceeding  anddidnotattempttodisputeorcontroverttheevidenceinsupportofasentencing  factorthatjustifiedthesentenceimposed,andtheevidenceofthefactorwas k overwhelming,thenforfeitureappliesandreversalonappealiswhollyunwarranted.T   Sample,122Cal.App.at219,18Cal.Rptr.at61920(internalcitationsomitted). & v   Iconcludethatapplicationofenhancementfactors(2),(8),and(16)issufficienttopermit  H asentenceenhancementofthreeyearsbeyondthepresumptiveminimum.Forthesereasons,I  1  wouldaffirmtheappellantssentenceofelevenyears.#XX XXh#X XXX       `     h      p ______________________________      `     h      p DavidG.Hayes,Judge#XX XX'# n