WPC 2g]=%G*9?L/ݭd.z̕3oF1vFOC-X{H~6o;Hv=;FB%þmz`h=n /H"&uK"GfOךDN EEP>LBal'h3qۄ h%oU(/?CAduN.vDfZw6$c)ա_[*)x8H>RTcHOu!=gJIHm,`jkS^[fcn"O~uKkQJd-@Iv w(ɪ?A8=v_yH>Wm`֡sBG`^ԥ*"I(NCq߳N',[ v+tPC^9HgDǂ5.ѯ?N~o4mE(LLb#\ %% ^ + 07 UN w 4 z%  q  m  _ %NEb 0 B 0 D3i D- 0K ASg 0- 0D A\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,01 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularb.: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|xULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2$ !.8Wdd8         0  i d(|3$ !.8Wdd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Wdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Wdd8     _  W8XXdd8  @ttMWINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#WM #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsJuly28,2004 L XXW #WXX#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.DAVIDLEE_BELLAMY_XXW  J  AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforSullivanCounty  J @@No.S47,546R.JerryBeck,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200302936CCAR3CDFiledAugust31,_2004_   AV) ` dE<|` A }        #WX#XX.WJames_Curwood_Ԁ_Witt_,Jr.,J.,concurring. <    ` Inmyview,wemustrecognizethepossibilitythat_Blakely_Ԁv.Washington,___U.S. d ___,124S.Ct.2531(2004),hampersatrialjudgesauthoritytomakethefactfindingsnecessary P toovercomethestatutorypresumptionoffavorablecandidacyforalternativesentencing.SeeTenn. < CodeAnn.4035102(6)(2003)(establishingpresumptionoffavorablecandidacyforalternative ( sentencingforcertainmitigatedorstandardoffendersconvictedoffeloniesinClassesCthroughE),  Є103(1)(2003)(establishingfactualbaseswhichmaysupportasentenceofconfinement).     ` ThedefendantinthepresentcaseenjoyedthepresumptionofCodesection4035  102(6),anditbehoovedthetrialcourt,inimposingasentenceofconfinement,tooffsetthe t presumptionbyfindingany,oranycombination,ofthefactualpremiseslistedinsection4035 ` 103(1),suchas,theneedtoprotectsocietyfromanoffenderwithalonghistoryofcriminalconduct L  ortheineffectivenessofpriornonconfinementmeasures.Seeid.4035103(1)(A)(C)(2003). 8!  Thatfactualdeterminationisinadditiontothefactsexplicitlyorimplicitlyestablishedbythe $"t! defendantsguiltyplea. #`"    ` In_Apprendi_Ԁv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,120SCt.2348(2000),theSupremeCourt $8 $ oftheUnitedStatesdeterminedthatthedefendantsrighttojurytrialwasviolatedwhenthejudge %$!% imposedasentenceinexcessofthemaximumthejudgecouldhaveimposedhadhenotmadean &"& additionalfindingsoffact,notencompassedbythejurysverdict.Id.at49197,120S.Ct.at2363 '"' 68.In_Blakely_,theHighCourtexplainedthatthe statutorymaximumfor_Apprendi_purposesis (#( themaximumsentenceajudgemayimposesolelyonthebasisofthefactsreflectedinthejury )$) verdictoradmittedbythedefendant._Blakely_,___U.S.at___,124S.Ct.at2537(emphasisin p*%* original).Thus,themaximumsentencethejudgemayorderisnotthemaximumheorshemay \+&+ impose afterfindingadditionalfacts,butthemaximum[thejudge]mayimposewithoutany H,', additionalfindings.Id.(emphasisinoriginal). 4-(- Ї   ` Moreover,theHighCourtin_Blakely_didnotspeakinnarrowtermsthattargeted  merelythelengthofanaccusedssentence;rather,itspokeinbroadtermsofthestatespowerto  punish: Whenajudgeinflictspunishmentthatthejurysverdictalonedoesnotallow,thejuryhas  notfoundallthefactswhichthelawmakesessentialtothepunishment,...andthejudgeexceeds t hisproperauthority.Id.(quoting1J.Bishop,CriminalProcedure,87,p.55(2ded.1872) ` (emphasisadded). L     ` Thus,_Blakely_seemstohaveimpactonTennesseesschemeofpresumingfavorable $ t candidacyforalternativesentencingbecausewhethertoconfineornotconfineis,inageneralsense,  ` anissueofpunishment.See_Schirro_Ԁv._Summerlin_,___U.S.___,___,124S.Ct.2519,252326  L  (2004)(principlesofRingv.Arizona,536U.S.584,122S.Ct.2428(2002),uponwhich_Blakely_  8  relies,donotapply retroactivelytocasesalreadyfinalondirectappeal). $     ` Thatsaid,weknowthattheSixthAmendmentsprohibitionofincreasingpunishment   beyondthe statutorymaximumbaseduponanadditionaljudgemadefindingdoesnotapplyto    thefactofapriorconviction.See_Apprendi_,530U.S.at490,120S.Ct.at2362.Inthepresent   case,thedefendantsrecordofpriorconvictionsissubstantial.Althoughthepertinentfactual p premiseforovercomingthepresumptionoffavorablecandidacyforalternativesentencingaddresses \ prior historyofcriminalconduct,astandardthatdoesnotnecessarilylimitconsiderationto H conductthatresultedinconvictions,thedefendantdoeshaveanextensiverecordofprior 4 convictions.Forthatreason,Ibelievethatthetrialjudgecouldhaveproperlybasedhisconfinement  p orderontherecordofpriorconvictions,andevenif_Blakely_doesapplytoCodesection4035  \ 102(6)spresumption,thecourtsuseofsentencingfactorsotherthanpriorcriminalconvictions H wouldbeharmlessbeyondareasonabledoubt. 4 #WXX#XXW   ` #WXX#  _XXW_   `     h     ___________________________________ l    `     h     JAMES_CURWOOD_Ԁ_WITT_,JR.,JUDGE