ÿWPC lMˆ!q‘ø¹ãÔ$Ü xpwVþ 7ìq¯@Çmýo Ô©&¿-Œ´‹uîž0†ÈËŠf#®@([<ýÝêUsV4vžÜ#åáèŒnÍÒÌdB^ØÐL,óŸ!D«?HòT3j©ø¤$Û~£o&!’Þ›)á¼p^ Ô¡5"F¯ªT–:óà>¯eW~tUÕæÊuž.…š­¤ÝrðQVá亇òUCŽ›O~~µ3Ñf©<@:–SÌmK²À/‚ Yé!£·:ÁU€‹È?zêâCuÌ'.D šÒäLRÛÀ%ʆJ£·¥‘’Tæßsa¤FÅÿÕµY  Ó7½RV«ÉÏ ‘í!®xª½ûÍØ1_ <~[?ÁÙDݘglœ &¡Ô²‘@Ã~ÂÍŽ`Tg©•`îùs©‡³7v]í]ìijtÚ×­¾&³b—ùÄ»ðv[†¹;ö¯_Ôfçí0B®Y©üâ/¢óËW+'/™E•rTÛé’žËqµÀ>9¦C²vîPCÎg*—}Q.éŽ0ŽjQHØçTgâ1ä½ú-jÈH$œ`rXÀboïó†JÑPJRBÇ`Q1ü¥A U‹Ñ\8žÕäe“Ö¶ÂAŸ£b %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ #ÁÐ U@‘ ÆÑ Æ— Æ] Æ#éNÿE                        b                                     0ë Bþþ 0¤ D3¿ D-ò 0K ASjƽ 0¤ƒ 0D' A«k»6ƒm+â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman RegularyG*¢Ø+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.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ˜HP LaserJet 4050ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈÈ0(ÈhH  Z(Times New Roman Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 Ñ H Ñ - ù-(|G2¦‰$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ô§ ò»»Ô d(|3ÿ_$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3ÿ_$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€%»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼%»»»ÔÑ8€[éXXdì»»d8ÑÑ€?TÑà@ttìàÔ‡îd%ÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼%»îîd#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àAssigned€on€Briefs€July€25,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡X[éX»¼%ÔÌò òÔ#†¼%»XX[é/#ÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€v.€JANICE€CAROL€Ô_ÔBISKNERÔ_Ôó óÐ úJ ÐÌÔ‡X[éX»¼%Ôà@@½½ìàò òDirect€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Hamilton€CountyÐ  p Ðà@@øøìàNos.€227227,€227228,€and€228928€€€€€€Rebecca€J.€Stern,€JudgeÐ  \ ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<Ï` AßÐ Ð  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„01440„CCA„R3„CDÐ Ë  ÐNovember€13,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ·  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<¢` AßÐ £ó  Ðó óÔ#†¼%»XX[éØ#ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ€X[éX»¼%ÔDefendant€was€convicted€of€driving€under€the€influence€(ð ðÔ_ÔDUIÔ_Ôðð),€fourth€or€subsequent€offense,Ð Ä Ðdriving€while€license€revoked,€and€child€endangerment.€€In€this€appeal,€Defendant€challenges€allÐ ° Ðconvictions€on€the€ground€that€the€trial€courtððs€€refusal€to€bifurcate€the€trial€proceedings€violated€herÐ œì Ðright€to€a€fair€trial.€€Defendant€also€argues€that€recently€amended€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€sectionÐ ˆØ Ð55„10„403(a)(1)€is€unconstitutional€and€that€her€sentence€is€excessive.€€After€a€review€of€the€recordÐ tÄ Ðand€applicable€law,€we€reverse€Defendantððs€convictions€and€remand€this€case€for€a€new€trial.Ð `° ÐÓ+ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Criminal€Court€Reversed.ó óÐ 8ˆ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ‡ X[éXàX[éÔThomas€T.€Ô_ÔWoodallÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJames€Ô_ÔCurwoodÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔWittÔ_Ô,€Jr.,óóÐ ` Ðand€òòRobert€W.€Ô_ÔWedemeyerÔ_Ôóó,€JJ.,€joined.Ð üL ÐÌÔ_ÔArdenaÔ_Ô€J.€Garth,€District€Public€Defender;€William€Dobson,€Assistant€Public€Defender;€and€DonnaÐ Ô$ ÐR.€Miller,€Assistant€Public€Defender,€òòóófor€the€appellant,€Janice€Carol€Ô_ÔBisknerÔ_Ô.Ð À ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Elizabeth€B.€Ô_ÔMarneyÔ_Ô,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð ˜ è ÐWilliam€H.€Cox,€III,€District€Attorney€General;€Tom€Kimball,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General;Ð „!Ô  Ðand€Ô_ÔParkeÔ_Ô€Masterson,€Assistant€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ô‡ îdîX X[éÔÐ p"À! ÐÔ#† X[éXî îdØ #ÔÔ#†X[éXX X[éÖ#ÔÓÊÓÌà@@OO&ìàò òOPINIONó óÐ H$˜# ÐÌÓ  Óà  àThe€defendant,€Janice€Carol€Ô_ÔBisknerÔ_Ô,€was€convicted€by€a€Hamilton€County€jury€of€childÐ  &p!% Ðendangerment,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„414(1),€a€Class€A€misdemeanor;€driving€while€licenseÐ  '\"& Ðrevoked,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504,€a€Class€B€misdemeanor;€and€driving€under€the€influence€ofÐ ø'H#' Ðan€intoxicant€(ð ðÔ_ÔDUIÔ_Ôðð),€fourth€or€subsequent€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401,€a€Class€E€felony.€Ð ä(4$( ÐThe€trial€court€imposed€a€sentence€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€each€of€DefendantððsÐ Ð) %) Ðtwo€misdemeanor€convictions€(an€improper€sentence€for€the€driving€on€a€revoked€licenseÐ ¼* &* Ðconviction),€a€sentence€of€two€years€for€Defendantððs€felony€Ô_ÔDUIÔ_Ô€conviction,€and€ordered€allÐ ¨+ø&+ Ðsentences€to€be€served€concurrently€for€an€effective€sentence€of€two€years€in€the€TennesseeÐ ”,ä', ÐDepartment€of€Correction.€€Ð €-Ð(-ý ÐÔ_Ô‡à  àOn€appeal,€Defendant€raises€the€following€issues:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€by€failingÐ ° Ðto€bifurcate€Defendantððs€trial€proceedings,€thereby€allowing€the€jury€to€hear€prejudicial€evidence€ofÐ œì ÐDefendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions€which€compromised€her€right€to€a€fair€trial;€(2)€whether€the€recentÐ ˆØ Ðamendment€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„403(a)(1),€regarding€penalties€for€DUIÐ tÄ Ðconvictions,€violates€the€prohibitions€against€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws€in€our€state€and€federal€constitutions;Ð `° Ðand€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erroneously€applied€sentencing€enhancement€factors€in€determiningÐ L œ ÐDefendantððs€sentences.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àBased€on€the€recent€decision€of€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Ronnie€Lamar€Evansóó,€No€E2000„00327„Ð  ` ÐCCA„R9„CD,€2001€WL€501414,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€May€11,€2001)Ð ü L  Ðòòno€perm.€to€app.€filedóó,€we€reverse€Defendantððs€conviction€for€felony€DUI€and€remand€this€matter€forÐ è 8  Ða€new€trial€in€which€guilt€or€innocence€is€determined€in€a€proceeding€separate€from€that€whichÐ Ô$  Ðrequires€the€jury€to€hear€evidence€concerning€prior€DUI€convictions.€€In€addition,€we€reverseÐ À  ÐDefendantððs€misdemeanor€convictions€for€the€reasons€stated€herein,€and,€in€the€event€of€furtherÐ ¬ü  Ðreview€and/or€for€guidance€on€remand,€we€find€that€the€penalties€imposed€under€the€1998Ð ˜è  Ðamendment€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„203(a)(1)€do€not€violate€an€accusedððsÐ „Ô  Ðconstitutional€rights€against€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws€and€that€certain€enhancement€factors€were€improperlyÐ pÀ Ðapplied€to€Defendantððs€felony€DUI€sentence.Ð \¬ ÐÌò òà@!ìàFACTUAL€BACKGROUNDó óˆÐ 4„ ÐÌà  àOn€July€14,€1998,€the€East€Ridge€Police€Department€dispatcher€alerted€the€officers€in€theÐ  \ Ðvicinity€of€the€East€Ridge€movie€theater€to€be€on€the€lookout€for€a€Jeep€with€a€specific€license€tagÐ øH Ðnumber.€€Lieutenant€Barry€Yates€was€the€first€to€spot€the€Jeep.€€It€was€traveling€south€on€McBrienÐ ä4 ÐRoad€and,€in€Yatesðð€opinion,€the€Jeep€was€being€driven€ð ðerratically.ðð€€Once€behind€the€Jeep,€YatesÐ Ð  Ðturned€on€his€blue€lights€and€siren€in€an€attempt€to€pull€the€vehicle€over.€€The€driver€appearedÐ ¼  Ðoblivious€to€his€presence,€however,€and€continued€driving€down€McBrien€Road.€€When€the€JeepÐ ¨ø Ðreached€Ringgold€Road,€it€turned€right€and€proceeded€to€Tombras€Avenue.€€Yates€was€still€followingÐ ”ä Ðthe€Jeep,€with€the€police€car€siren€and€blue€lights€on.€€When€it€seemed€apparent€to€Yates€that€theÐ €Ð Ðdriver€of€the€Jeep€had€no€intention€of€stopping,€he€radioed€for€assistance.€€Lieutenant€Butch€Bryson,Ð l¼ Ðanother€East€Ridge€police€patrol€officer,€responded.€€The€Jeep€was€traveling€at€approximately€20Ð X ¨ Ðmiles€per€hour€when€Bryson€met€Yates€on€Tombras€Avenue.€€Bryson€blocked€the€road€in€front€of€theÐ D!” ÐJeep€with€his€police€car,€which€forced€the€driver€into€the€parking€lot€at€East€Ridge€City€Hall€whereÐ 0"€  Ðit€finally€came€to€a€stop.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àOfficer€Yates€then€approached€the€Jeep.€€The€Defendant€was€driving,€and€her€eight„year„oldÐ ô$D # Ðson€was€seated€on€the€front€seat€of€the€passenger€side€of€the€vehicle.€€Yates€noted€that€DefendantððsÐ à%0!$ Ðspeech€was€slurred€and€her€clothes€were€disarranged.€€The€boy€appeared€frightened€and€nervous.€Ð Ì&"% ÐYates€went€to€the€passenger€side€of€the€car.€€Meanwhile,€Officer€Bryson€approached€the€driverððs€sideÐ ¸'#& Ðand€asked€Defendant€to€step€out€of€the€vehicle.€€Bryson€testified€that€Defendant€moved€slowly€andÐ ¤(ô#' Ðseemed€to€have€trouble€getting€out.€€Once€out€of€the€vehicle,€she€was€unsteady€on€her€feet€and€unableÐ )à$( Ðto€stand€without€assistance.€€She€also€had€an€odor€of€alcohol€on€her€person.€€Based€on€theirÐ |*Ì%) Ðexperience,€both€officers€concluded€that€Defendant€was€intoxicated.€€Ð h+¸&* Їà  àYates€gave€Defendantððs€son€a€ride€home,€placing€him€in€the€care€of€his€adult„age€brother.€Ð ° ÐBryson€attempted€to€give€Defendant€several€field€sobriety€tests,€but€she€was€unable€to€followÐ œì ÐBrysonððs€instructions€while€maintaining€an€upright€position.€€For€safety€reasons,€Bryson€thenÐ ˆØ Ðdispensed€with€further€testing€and€arrested€her€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€alcohol.€€ArrivingÐ tÄ Ðat€the€police€department,€Defendant€voluntarily€signed€an€implied€consent€form€wherein€she€agreedÐ `° Ðto€submit€to€a€test€to€determine€the€alcohol€content€in€her€blood.€€Using€an€Intoximeter€3000€ð ðEC/IRððÐ L œ Ðmachine,€Bryson€administered€a€breath€alcohol€test,€which€determined€Defendantððs€blood€alcoholÐ 8 ˆ Ðcontent€to€be€0.27.€€A€check€on€the€status€of€Defendantððs€driverððs€license€revealed€that€she€had€beenÐ $ t Ðdriving€with€a€revoked€license€at€the€time€of€this€DUI€offense.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àPrior€to€her€trial,€Defendant€filed€a€motion€in€limine€requesting,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€that€the€trial€courtÐ è 8  Ðprohibit€the€State€from€referring€to€Defendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions€during€the€trial.€€DefendantÐ Ô$  Ðargued€that,€under€Tennessee€Evidence€Rule€403,€this€evidence€should€be€considered€inadmissibleÐ À  Ðbecause€the€unfair€prejudice€outweighed€any€probative€value.€€In€the€alternative,€Defendant€requestedÐ ¬ü  Ðthat€the€trial€court€bifurcate€the€trial€proceedings€to€withhold€evidence€of€prior€DUI€convictions€untilÐ ˜è  Ðthe€jury€had€made€a€determination€concerning€Defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence.€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€denied€Defendantððs€motion€on€the€ground€that€proof€of€prior€DUI€convictionsÐ \¬ Ðconstituted€an€element€of€felony€DUI.€€The€trial€court€suggested€that€the€proof€might€be€lessÐ H˜ Ðprejudicial€if€the€State€and€Defendant€stipulated€as€to€Defendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions,€a€briefÐ 4„ Ðsummary€of€which€could€be€read€into€evidence€at€trial.€€On€the€condition€that€she€may€reserve€theÐ  p Ðissue€for€appeal,€Defendant€agreed.€€The€resulting€stipulation€read€at€trial€informed€the€jurors€thatÐ  \ ÐDefendant€had€two€previous€convictions€for€driving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicant€in€HamiltonÐ øH ÐCounty;€one€conviction€in€East€Ridge,€Tennessee;€and€one€conviction€in€Fort€Oglethorpe,€Georgia.€Ð ä4 ÐThe€jury€was€cautioned€that€the€stipulation€should€be€used€only€as€proof€of€an€element€of€the€offenseÐ Ð  Ðcharged,€to€wit:€the€element€requiring€proof€that€Defendant€had€three€or€more€DUI€convictions,Ð ¼  Ðwhich€enhanced€Defendantððs€DUI€offense€from€a€misdemeanor€to€a€Class€E€felony.Ð ¨ø ÐÌò òà@òò&ìàANALYSISó óˆÐ €Ð ÐÌò òà@ìàI.€€Bifurcation€of€Trial€Proceedingsó óˆÐ X ¨ ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€bifurcate€Defendantððs€trialÐ 0"€  Ðproceedings€to€withhold€evidence€of€prior€DUI€convictions€until€the€jury€had€made€a€determinationÐ #l! Ðconcerning€Defendantððs€guilt€or€innocence€for€the€felony€DUI€offense.€€Defendant€argues€that,Ð $X" Ðbecause€bifurcation€was€necessary€to€avoid€the€possibility€of€prejudice€and€preserve€her€right€toÐ ô$D # Ðprocedural€fairness,€this€Court€should€reverse€all€convictions€and€grant€her€a€new€trial€with€bifurcatedÐ à%0!$ Ðproceedings.€€After€a€thorough€review€of€the€record,€we€agree€and€reverse€Defendantððs€convictions.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àò òA.€€Defendantððs€Felony€DUI€Convictionó óÐ ¤(ô#' ÐÓ3³ÓÌÓ3³z2Óà  àIn€its€brief,€the€State€acknowledges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€refusing€to€bifurcateÐ 5*…%) ÐDefendantððs€trial€for€the€felony€DUI€offense.€€On€April€23,€2001,€Defendant€and€the€State€filed€aÐ !+q&* Ðjoint€motion€to€hold€this€appeal€in€abeyance€pending€the€decision€in€òòState€v.€Ronnie€Lamar€Evansóó,Ð  ,]'+ ÐNo€E2000„00327„CCA„R9„CD,€2001€WL€501414,€Hamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,Ð ° ÐMay€11,€2001),€òòno€perm.€to€app.€filedóó,€which€addressed€this€precise€issue.€€The€motion€to€stayÐ œì ÐDefendantððs€appeal€was€granted€the€same€day.€€On€May€11,€2001,€this€Court€decided€òòEvansóó,€whichÐ ˆØ Ðwe€agree€is€dispositive€of€the€matter€regarding€Defendantððs€felony€DUI€conviction.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  à€In€òòEvansóó,€the€defendantòòóó€was€charged€with€DUI,€fourth€offense.€€Prior€to€trial,€a€dispute€arose€Ð L œ Ðconcerning€whether€the€defendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions€were€indeed€elements€of€the€chargedÐ 8 ˆ Ðoffense€that€must€be€proven€during€trial,€or€whether€this€evidence€was€more€appropriately€broughtÐ $ t Ðbefore€a€jury€during€a€second€ð ðenhancementðð€phase€after€guilt€had€been€determined.€€The€stateÐ  ` Ðpointed€out€that€there€was€a€need€for€consistency€in€the€law€regarding€this€issue€because€not€all€courtsÐ ü L  Ðbifurcated€proceedings€of€this€type.€€This€Court€granted€the€stateððs€application€for€an€interlocutoryÐ è 8  Ðappeal€which€addressed,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€(1)€whether€prior€DUI€convictions€should€be€used€only€to€enhanceÐ Ô$  Ða€sentence€and€are,€therefore,€not€elements€of€DUI,€fourth€offense;€and€(2)€whether€a€felony€DUI€trialÐ À  Ðshould€be€bifurcated€into€separate€phases€as€required€by€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€40„35„Ð ¬ü  Ð203(e).€€As€a€result€of€the€supreme€courtððs€decision€in€òòState€v.€Robinsonóó,€29€S.W.3d€476€(Tenn.Ð ˜è  Ð2000),€the€òòEvansóó€court€concluded€that€a€DUI,€second€or€subsequent€offense,€does€not€constitute€aÐ „Ô  Ðnew€offense€but€merely€enhances€the€DUI€conviction€and,€further,€that€in€situations€such€as€these,Ð pÀ Ðthe€trial€court€should€bifurcate€the€proceedings€to€minimize€prejudice€to€the€defendant.€€òòSeeóó€òòEvansóó,Ð \¬ Ð2001€WL€501414€at€*2.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àòòEvansóó€requires€a€bifurcated€hearing€in€order€to€provide€procedural€fairness.€€òòSeeóó€òòHarrison€v.Ð  p ÐStateóó,€394€S.W.2d€713,€717€(Tenn.€1965).€€We€therefore€reverse€Defendantððs€felony€DUI€convictionÐ  \ Ðand€remand€this€matter€for€a€new€trial€in€which€guilt€or€innocence€is€determined€in€a€proceedingÐ øH Ðseparate€from€that€which€requires€the€jury€to€hear€evidence€concerning€prior€DUI€convictions.€Ð ä4 ÐÓ3³ÓÌà  àò òB.€€Defendantððs€Misdemeanor€Convictionsó óÐ uÅ ÐÌÓ3³L>Óà  àHaving€decided€that€the€proof€of€prior€DUI€convictions€unfairly€compromised€DefendantððsÐ ¿ Ðright€to€a€fair€trial€on€the€felony€DUI€offense,€it€is€neither€reasonable€or€logical€to€conclude€that€theÐ «û Ðsame€evidence€had€no€effect€on€the€juryððs€determination€of€guilt€for€the€misdemeanor€offenses.€Ð —ç ÐBecause€the€proof€of€Defendantððs€four€DUI€convictions€was€not€relevant€to€any€issue€regardingÐ ƒÓ Ðwhether€or€not€she€was€guilty€of€driving€with€a€revoked€license€and€child€endangerment,€it€was€errorÐ o ¿ Ðto€admit€evidence€regarding€these€convictions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€402.€€The€error€was€not€harmless.€Ð [!«  ÐTherefore,€we€also€reverse€the€convictions€for€driving€on€a€revoked€license€and€child€endangerment,Ð G"—! Ðand€remand€these€cases€for€a€new€trial.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(b).Ð 3#ƒ" ÐÌà  à€€Even€though€we€have€reversed€Defendantððs€convictions,€errors€noted€during€our€review€ofÐ  %[ $ Ðthe€record€compel€us€to€address€additional€issues€concerning€Defendantððs€conviction€for€drivingÐ ÷%G!% Ðwhile€her€license€was€revoked.€€Specifically,€the€indictment€was€erroneously€considered€as€chargingÐ ã&3"& Ðdriving€on€a€revoked€license,€second€offense,€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€and€the€jury€instructionsÐ Ï'#' Ðregarding€this€charge€were€also€erroneous.€€Ð »( $( ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌÌDÓà  àBecause€the€issues€concerning€the€errors€we€shall€discuss€were€not€raised€in€the€briefs€ofÐ c*³%* Ðeither€party€nor€included€in€Defendantððs€motion€for€new€trial,€we€address€these€issues€under€theÐ O+Ÿ&+ Ðdoctrine€of€ð ðplain€error,ðð€which€provides€that€ð ð[a]n€error€which€has€affected€the€substantial€rightsÐ ;,‹', Ðof€an€accused€may€be€noticed€at€any€time,€even€though€not€raised€in€the€motion€for€a€new€trial€orÐ ° Ðassigned€as€error€on€appeal,€in€the€discretion€of€the€appellate€court€where€necessary€to€do€substantialÐ œì Ðjustice.ðð€€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€Pro.€52(b).€€Ð ˆØ ÐÓfæÓÌÓfælGÓà  àIn€òòState€v.€Adkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€626€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994),€this€Court€developed€fiveÐ H˜ Ðfactors€to€consider€when€deciding€whether€an€error€constitutes€ð ðplain€errorðð:€ð ð(a)€the€record€mustÐ 4 „ Ðclearly€establish€what€occurred€in€the€trial€court;€(b)€a€clear€and€unequivocal€rule€of€law€must€haveÐ  p Ðbeen€breached;€(c)€a€substantial€right€of€the€accused€must€have€been€adversely€affected;€(d)€theÐ  \ Ðaccused€did€not€waive€the€issue€for€tactical€reasons;€and€(e)€consideration€of€the€error€is€ððnecessaryÐ ø H Ðto€do€substantial€justice.ðððð€òòId.óó€at€641-42.€€Ð ä 4  ÐÓfæÓÌÓfæNJÓà  àThis€test€was€formally€adopted€by€our€supreme€court€in€òòState€v.€Smithóó,€24€S.W.3d€274€(Tenn.Ð ¤ô  Ð2000)€for€use€when€reviewing€a€record€for€plain€error.€€òòId.óó€at€282„283.€€The€presence€of€all€fiveÐ à  Ðfactors€must€be€established€by€the€record€before€the€existence€of€plain€error€may€be€recognized,€òòid.óóÐ |Ì  Ðat€283,€and€the€ð ðððplain€errorðð€must€[have€been]€of€such€a€great€magnitude€that€it€probably€changedÐ h¸  Ðthe€outcome€of€the€trial.ðð€€òòAdkissonóó,€899€S.W.2d€at€642.€€òòSee€alsoóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(b)€(providingÐ T¤  Ðan€appellate€court€with€wide€discretion€in€recognizing€issues€that€have€been€waived€due€to€aÐ @ Ðprocedural€default€or€which€have€not€been€raised€by€the€parties).€€For€reasons€which€shall€becomeÐ ,| Ðapparent€later€in€this€opinion,€we€find€that€the€record€establishes€the€presence€of€the€five€requisiteÐ h Ðfactors€enumerated€òòsupraóó.Ð T ÐÓfæÓÌÓfæ’NÓà  àFirst,€we€observe€that€the€indictment€includes€no€allegations€that€the€driving€on€a€revokedÐ Ä Ðlicense€charge€was€a€second€or€subsequent€offense.€€Although€the€heading€on€the€first€page€of€theÐ ° Ðindictment€lists€this€charge€as€a€ð ðClass€A€Misdemeanorðð€and€ð ðsecond€offense,ðð€the€charging€portionÐ œì Ðof€the€indictment,€which€lists€the€elements€of€the€offense€and€informs€the€defendant€of€the€specificÐ ˆØ Ðcharge€against€which€she€must€defend,€alleges€a€ð ðClass€Bðð€misdemeanor.€€Specifically,€theÐ tÄ Ðindictment€statesÐ `° ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌÌCQÓà8  àà ` àThat€Janice€Carol€Biskner€heretofore€on€July€14,€1998,€in€the€CountyÐ X Ðaforesaid,€did€unlawfully€and€knowingly€drive€and€operate€a€motor€vehicle€upon€theÐ ôD Ðpublic€roads,€highways,€streets€or€alleys€of€said€County€and€State€after€theÐ à0 Ðdefendantððs€operators€[sic]€license€òòhad€been€revoked€as€provided€by€law,€for€a€secondÐ Ì  Ðor€subsequent€conviction€for€driving€while€intoxicated€under€Tennessee€CodeÐ ¸!  ÐAnnotated€55„10„401óó,€and€after€the€defendant€had€been€notified€of€such€revocation,Ð ¤"ô! Ðin€violation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€55„50„504,€against€the€peace€and€dignityÐ #à" Ðof€the€State.Ð|$Ì#Ð Ð  ÐÓÌÌÓÌÓÌÌqTÓ(Emphasis€added.)Ð $&t!% Ðà  àAccording€to€the€language€in€this€indictment,€Defendant€may€be€convicted€only€for€drivingÐ '`"& Ðwhile€license€revoked,€first€offense,€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.€€In€order€to€convict€Defendant€forÐ ü'L#' Ðdriving€while€license€revoked€as€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€offense,€the€indictment€must€allege,€in€aÐ è(8$( Ðseparate€count,€that€the€current€violation€was€ð ða€second€or€subsequentðð€offense.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ Ô)$%) Ðâ âAnn.€ðð€40„35„203(e)€(1997).€€Here,€no€count€of€the€indictment€alleged€a€prior€conviction€for€drivingÐ À*&* ÐÑ?TÑâ âÑH°Ñâ âÑ  Ñwith€a€revoked€license.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„50„504(a)(2)€specifically€providesÐ ° ÐthatÐ œì Ðâ âÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà ` àA€òòsecond€or€subsequent€violationóó€of€subdivision€(a)(1)€is€a€Class€AÐ tÄ Ðmisdemeanor.€€A€person€who€drives€a€motor€vehicle€on€any€public€highway€of€thisÐ `° Ðstate€at€a€time€when€the€person's€privilege€to€do€so€is€cancelled,€suspended€or€revokedÐ L œ Ðbecause€of€a€second€or€subsequent€conviction€for€vehicular€assault€under€ððÐ 8 ˆ Ð39-13-106,€vehicular€homicide€under€ðð€39-13-213,€or€driving€while€intoxicated€underÐ $ t Ððð€55-10-401€shall€be€punished€by€confinement€for€not€less€than€forty-five€(45)€daysÐ  ` Ðnor€more€than€one€(1)€year,€and€there€may€be€imposed,€in€addition,€a€fine€of€not€lessÐ ü L  Ðthan€three€thousand€dollars€($3,000).Ð è 8  ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð55„50„504(a)(2)€(1998)€(emphasis€added).€€Subdivision€(a)(1)€is€the€statuteÐ À  Ðsection€defining€first€offense€ð ðdriving€while€license€cancelled,€suspended,€or€revoked,ðð€a€Class€BÐ ¬ü  Ðmisdemeanor,€and€states,€in€pertinent€part,€that€ð ða€person€who€drives€a€motor€vehicle€on€any€publicÐ ˜è  Ðhighway€of€this€state€at€a€time€when€the€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€is€cancelled,€suspended,€orÐ „Ô  Ðrevoked€commits€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„50„504(a)(1)€(1998).Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àThe€treatment€of€this€case€as€a€Class€A€misdemeanor€was€apparently€the€result€of€aÐ H˜ Ðmisinterpretation€of€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„50„504(a)(2)€by€the€trial€court,€the€State,Ð 4„ Ðand€Defendant.€€When€required€to€interpret€a€statute€on€appeal,€our€rules€of€statutory€constructionÐ  p Ðrequire€this€Court€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€the€legislative€intent€without€unduly€restricting€orÐ  \ Ðexpanding€the€intended€scope€of€a€statute.€€òòSeals€v.€Stateóó,€23€S.W.3d€272,€276€(Tenn.€2000).€€WeÐ øH Ðexamine€the€natural€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€statutory€language€within€the€context€of€the€entireÐ ä4 Ðstatute,€without€forced€or€subtle€construction€that€would€extend€or€limit€its€meaning.€€òòState€v.Ð Ð  ÐFlemmingóó,€19€S.W.3d€195,€197€(Tenn.€2000).€€Where€an€ambiguity€exists€in€the€statutory€language,Ð ¼  Ðwe€must€look€to€the€entire€statutory€scheme€in€seeking€to€ascertain€the€true€legislative€intent,€òòOwensÐ ¨ø Ðv.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995),€and€avoid€a€statutory€construction€which€would€renderÐ ”ä Ðportions€of€the€statute€inoperative.€€òòState€v.€Turneróó,€913€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€1995).€€In€addition,Ð €Ð Ðcriminal€statutes€are€to€be€strictly€construed€against€the€State€and€in€favor€of€the€defendant.€€òòState€v.Ð l¼ ÐAlfordóó,€970€S.W.2d€944,€947€(Tenn.€1998);€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945,€952€(Tenn.€1987).€€€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àWe€find€the€language€in€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„50„504(a)(2)€clearly€statesÐ D!” Ðthat€to€find€a€defendant€guilty€of€driving€while€license€revoked€as€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€theÐ 0"€  Ðoffense€must€be€a€ð ðsecond€or€subsequent€violationòòóó.ðð€€The€indictment€does€not€allege€a€second€orÐ #l! Ðsubsequent€violation.€€Rather,€it€paraphrases€the€statutory€language€from€the€second€sentence€ofÐ $X" Ðsection€(a)(2)€above,€which€merely€provides€a€minimum€punishment€of€forty„five€(45)€days€whenÐ ô$D # Ða€defendant€is€convicted€of€the€Class€A€misdemeanor€offense€under€certain€circumstances,€i.e.,€at€aÐ à%0!$ Ðtime€when€the€personððs€privilege€to€do€so€was€cancelled,€suspended€or€revoked€because€of€a€secondÐ Ì&"% Ðor€subsequent€conviction€for€one€of€the€offenses€specified.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€we€find€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€gave€the€following€instructions€to€theÐ )à$( Ðjury:Ð |*Ì%) Ðâ âÐ h+¸&* ÐÒ°ÒÒ°Òà ` àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€driving€on€revoked,€suspended€orÐ ° Ðcancelled€license€as€a€Class€A€misdemeanor,€the€State€must€have€proven€beyond€aÐ œì Ðreasonable€doubt€the€following:Ð ˆØ Ðâ âà ` à(1)€The€defendant€unlawfully€drove€a€vehicle€upon€a€public€road,€highway,Ð tÄ Ðstreet€or€alley€of€this€county€and€state,€and€Ð `° Ðà ` à(2)€The€defendant€did€so€at€a€time€when€her€license€or€privilege€to€do€so€hadÐ L œ Ðbeen€suspended,€cancelled,€or€revoked€for€a€second€or€subsequent€conviction€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðdriving€while€intoxicated€and€after€the€defendant€had€been€notified€of€suchÐ $ t Ðrevocation,€and€Ð  ` Ðà ` à(3)€The€defendant€did€so€knowingly.Ð ü L  ÐÓ€ÓÌÓ€œkÓà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à*à0  à*à0pÐ Ð à*Ð^® pÐ pÐ  Ðà ` àFor€you€to€find€the€defendant€guilty€of€driving€on€revoked,€suspended€orÐ Jš  Ðcancelled€license€as€a€Class€B€misdemeanor,€the€State€must€have€proven€beyond€aÐ 6†  Ðreasonable€doubt€the€following:Ð "r  Ðà ` à(1)€The€defendant€unlawfully€drove€a€vehicle€upon€a€public€road,€highway,Ð ^  Ðstreet€or€alley€of€this€state€and€county,€and€Ð úJ Ðà ` à(2)€The€defendant€did€so€at€a€time€when€her€license€or€privilege€to€do€so€hadÐ æ6 Ðbeen€suspended,€cancelled,€or€revoked,€andÐ Ò" Ðà ` à(3)€The€defendant€did€so€knowingly.Ð ¾ Ðà ` àÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà  àThe€jury€charge€given€the€jury€concerning€the€Class€A€misdemeanor€grade€of€driving€whileÐ –æ Ðlicense€revoked€is€incorrect.€€It€erroneously€required€the€jury€to€make€an€unnecessary€finding„„thatÐ ‚Ò Ðthe€revocation€of€Defendantððs€license€was€for€a€second€or€subsequent€conviction€for€driving€whileÐ n¾ Ðintoxicated„„with€language€substantively€similar€to€the€allegations€in€the€indictment€which,€asÐ Zª Ðdiscussed€above,€was€incorrect,€and€therefore€not€a€proper€jury€instruction.Ð F– ÐÌà  à€€ð ðA€charge€should€be€considered€prejudicially€erroneous€if€it€fails€to€fairly€submit€the€legalÐ n Ðissues€or€if€it€misleads€the€jury€as€to€the€applicable€law.ðð€€òòState€v.€Vannóó,€976€S.W.2d€93,€101€(Tenn.Ð  Z Ð1998€)€(citations€omitted).€Since€the€above€jury€instruction€clearly€failed€to€do€both,€we€consider€theÐ öF Ðjury€charge€regarding€the€offense€of€driving€while€license€revoked€to€be€prejudicially€erroneous.Ð â2 ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€we€find€that€introducing€proof€of€Defendantððs€prior€criminal€convictions€during€herÐ º!   Ðtrial€caused€unfair€prejudice€as€to€all€three€charges,€and€thereby€denied€Defendant€the€proceduralÐ ¦"ö! Ðfairness€she€is€entitled€to€under€the€law.€€òòóóTherefore,€we€reverse€Defendantððs€convictions€and€remandÐ ’#â" Ðthese€matters€for€a€new€trial€with€proceedings€consistent€this€opinion.€€The€charge€for€driving€on€aÐ ~$Î# Ðrevoked€license€is,€as€alleged€in€the€indictment,€a€Class€B€misdemeanor€and€shall€be€triedÐ j%º $ Ðaccordingly.Ð V&¦!% ÐÌà@óóìàò òII.€€Violation€of€Constitutional€Prohibitions€Against€òòExóó€òòPostóó€òòFactoóó€Lawsó óˆÐ .(~#' ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€1998€amendment€to€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„Ð *V%) Ð10„403(a)(1),€regarding€penalties€for€DUI€convictions,€violates€state€and€federal€constitutionalÐ ò*B&* Ðâ âprohibitions€against€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws€in€two€respects€which€involve€Defendantððs€right€to€notice.€Ð Þ+.'+ ÐEven€though€Defendantððs€felony€conviction€is€reversed€and€remanded,€we€shall€address€these€issuesÐ ° Ðin€the€event€of€further€review€or€for€guidance€on€remand.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àDefendantððs€first€argument€relies€on€a€notice€she€received€shortly€after€she€was€convicted€ofÐ tÄ ÐDUI€in€April€1994,€which€informed€her€that€any€subsequent€DUI€offense€would€be€punishable€byÐ `° Ðconfinement€for€not€less€than€120€days€nor€more€than€11€months€and€29€days.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð L œ Ððð€55„10„403(a)(1)€(1993).€€Confinement€for€this€length€of€time€(less€than€one€year)€is€consistent€withÐ 8 ˆ Ðpunishment€for€misdemeanor€offenses.€€However,€in€1998,€prior€to€the€instant€DUI€offense,€theÐ $ t Ðlegislature€amended€section€55„10„403(a)(1)€to€provide,€among€other€things,€that€a€fourth€orÐ  ` Ðsubsequent€DUI€offense€shall€be€a€Class€E€felony.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„403(a)(1)€(1998)Ð ü L  Ð(the€amended€statute€also€increases€the€period€of€mandatory€incarceration€and€the€fine€for€fourth€andÐ è 8  Ðsubsequent€offenses).€òòóó€Defendant€contends€that€the€statute,€as€amended,€violates€constitutionalÐ Ô$  Ðprohibitions€against€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws€because€it€rendered€the€information€in€her€1994€notice€ofÐ À  Ðenhancement€ð ðincorrect.ðð€€Defendant€further€argues€that,€even€if€she€had€not€received€the€1994Ð ¬ü  Ðnotification€regarding€subsequent€offenses,€the€current€statute€does€not€apply€in€her€case€because,Ð ˜è  Ðaccording€to€the€provision,€ð ðat€least€one€(1)€of€the€violations€of€ðð€55„10„401€must€occur€on€or€afterÐ „Ô  ÐJuly€1,€1998.ðð€€€Defendant€asserts€that€this€language€must€refer€to€òòprioróó€violations,€not€the€triggeringÐ pÀ Ðoffense,€in€order€to€satisfy€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€requirements€regarding€notice.€€We€disagree.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àBoth€the€United€States€Constitution,€in€Article€I,€Sections€9€and€10,€and€the€TennesseeÐ 4„ ÐConstitution,€in€Article€I,€Section€11,€contain€prohibitions€against€the€passage€of€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€lawsÐ  p Ðby€Congress€or€the€General€Assembly.€€òòState€v.€Rogersóó,€992€S.W.2d€393,€401„402€(Tenn.€1999).€€AnÐ  \ Ðòòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€law€within€the€meaning€of€the€federal€and€state€constitutions€has€been€defined€as€oneÐ øH ÐthatÐ ä4 ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òmakes€an€action€done€before€the€passing€of€the€law,€and€which€was€innocent€whenÐ ¼  Ðdone,€criminal;€and€punishes€such€action.€€Second,€every€law€that€aggravates€a€crime,Ð ¨ø Ðor€makes€it€greater€than€it€was,€when€committed.€€Third,€every€law€that€changes€theÐ ”ä Ðpunishment,€and€inflicts€a€greater€punishment,€than€the€law€annexed€to€the€crime,Ð €Ð Ðwhen€committed.€€Fourth,€every€law€that€alters€the€legal€rules€of€evidence,€andÐ l¼ Ðreceives€less,€or€different,€testimony,€than€the€law€required€at€the€time€of€theÐ X ¨ Ðcommission€of€the€offense,€in€order€to€convict€the€offender.€€Ð D!” ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒòòId.óó€(citations€omitted).€€The€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€similarly€held€that€this€prohibition€ð ðisÐ #l! Ðaimed€at€laws€that€òòretroactivelyóó€alter€the€definition€of€crimes€or€increase€the€punishment€for€criminalÐ $X" Ðacts.ðð€€òòCalifornia€Dept.€of€Corrections€v.€Moralesóó,€514€U.S.€499,€504,€115€S.Ct.€1597,€1601,€131€Ð ô$D # ÐL.Ed.2d€588€(1995)€€(citations€omitted)€(emphasis€added).€€€Clearly,€the€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€clauses€in€ourÐ à%0!$ Ðconstitutions€forbid€enacting€laws€which€alter€definitions€and/or€elements€of€crimes€or€increase€theirÐ Ì&"% Ðpunishment€at€a€point€in€time€òòafteróó€the€offense€has€been€committed.€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  à€Regarding€Defendantððs€first€argument€that€the€amended€statute€violates€prohibitions€againstÐ )à$( Ðòòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws€because€it€rendered€the€information€in€her€1994€notice€ð ðincorrect,ðð€€we€find€thatÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€analysis€used€by€this€Court€in€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€970€S.W.2d€500€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1996)€isÐ h+¸&* Ðhelpful.€€In€òòJohnsonóó,€the€defendant€challenged€his€classification€and€sentencing€as€a€multiple€rapistÐ T,¤'+ Ðon€the€ground€that€his€guilty€plea€to€a€1988€prior€offense€of€rape€was€entered€before€the€ð ðmultipleÐ @-(, Ðrapistðð€statute€was€enacted.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„523€(1997).€€Accordingly,€he€contendedÐ ° Ðthat€he€was€not€provided€with€notice€of€the€possibility€of€enhanced€sentencing€if€convicted€in€theÐ œì Ðfuture€of€the€same€offense€and,€therefore,€the€subsequently€enacted€multiple€rapist€statute€operatedÐ ˆØ Ðòòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€against€him€by€inflicting€a€greater€punishment€than€that€contemplated€when€the€firstÐ tÄ Ðoffense€was€committed.€€òòId.óó€at€505.€€The€court€in€òòJohnsonóó€found,€òòinteróó€òòaliaóó,€that€penalty€enhancingÐ `° Ðstatutes€affect€only€the€sentence€for€the€triggering€offense€and,€thus,€do€not€impermissibly€punishÐ L œ Ðprior€acts.€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòGryger€v.€Burkeóó,€334€U.S.€728,€732,€68€S.Ct.€1256,€1258,€92€L.Ed.€1683€(1948)Ð 8 ˆ Ð(ð ðthe€fact€that€one€of€the€convictions€that€entered€into€the€calculations€by€which€petitioner€becameÐ $ t Ða€fourth€offender€occurred€before€the€Act€was€passed,€[does€not]€make€the€Act€invalidlyÐ  ` Ðretroactiveðð)).€€In€other€words,€because€the€enhanced€punishment€in€òòJohnsonóó€was€for€the€latest€crimeÐ ü L  Ðalone,€the€statute€in€issue€did€not€operate€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€against€him.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòState€v.€Williamsóó,€675Ð è 8  ÐS.W.2d€499,€502€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1984)€(enhanced€punishment€laws,€e.g.,€habitual€criminalÐ Ô$  Ðstatutes,€are€not€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws,€nor€do€they€violate€an€accusedððs€due€process€or€equal€protectionÐ À  Ðrights).€Ð ¬ü  Ðà  à€Ð ˜è  Ðà  àThe€same€reasoning€applies€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó.€€The€statute€in€issue€is€clearly€a€penaltyÐ „Ô  Ðenhancing€statute.€€As€such,€it€does€not€affect€the€punishment€for€any€offense€prior€to€its€enactment,Ð pÀ Ðwhich€means€that€it€also€fails€to€violate€constitutional€prohibitions€against€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws.€Ð \¬ ÐDefendantððs€1994€notice€was€accurate€when€she€received€it€and€does€not€operate€to€freeze€the€lawÐ H˜ Ðregarding€the€related€offense,€in€effect,€voiding€subsequent€legislation€regarding€future€crimes.€€SuchÐ 4„ Ða€rule€is€neither€reasonable€or€logical.€€Ð  p ÐÌà  àDefendantððs€contention€that€the€enhancing€statute€does€not€apply€because€her€prior€DUIÐ øH Ðconvictions€all€occurred€before€July€1,€1998€is€likewise€without€merit.€€€This€precise€issue€wasÐ ä4 Ðdecided€in€òòState€v.€Charles€R.€Francisóó,€No.€E2000„02599„CCA„R3„CD,€2001€WL€1091169,€MorganÐ Ð  ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Sept.€19,€2001),€when€this€Court€addressed€the€very€narrowÐ ¼  Ðand€specific€issue€of€whether€a€fourth€offense€felony€DUI€conviction,€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÐ ¨ø ÐAnnotated€section€55„10„403(a(1),€required€that€at€least€one€of€the€defendantððs€òòprioróó€DUI€convictionsÐ ”ä Ðoccur€after€July€1,€1998.€€òòóóAfter€reviewing€the€amended€statuteððs€language€in€light€of€our€lawsÐ €Ð Ðconcerning€statutory€construction,€we€held€that€only€the€fourth€or€subsequent€offense€was€requiredÐ l¼ Ðto€occur€on€or€after€July€1,€1998.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€*3.€€Defendant€is€not€entitled€to€relief€on€this€issue.Ð X ¨ ÐÌò òà@YY"ìàIII.€€Sentencingó óˆÐ 0"€  ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€applying€certain€enhancement€factorsÐ $X" Ðwhen€determining€Defendantððs€sentence€and,€further,€that€this€error€caused€it€to€impose€theÐ ô$D # Ðmaximum€sentence€which€is€excessive.€€Even€though€we€have€reversed€Defendantððs€convictions,€weÐ à%0!$ Ðshall€address€the€sentencing€issue€in€the€event€of€further€review€or€for€guidance€on€remand,€ifÐ Ì&"% Ðnecessary.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àAppellate€review€of€sentencing€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€on€the€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trialÐ )à$( Ðcourt's€determinations€are€correct.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€€ðððð€40-35-401(d),€402(d).€€The€burden€is€on€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðappealing€party€to€show€that€the€sentencing€is€improper.€€òòId.óó€ðð€40„35„401,€Sentencing€CommissionÐ h+¸&* ÐComments.€€If€the€trial€court€followed€the€statutory€sentencing€procedure,€made€findings€of€fact€thatÐ T,¤'+ Ðare€adequately€supported€in€the€record,€and€gave€due€consideration€and€proper€weight€to€the€factorsÐ @-(, Ðand€principles€relevant€to€sentencing€under€the€1989€Sentencing€Act,€we€may€not€disturb€theÐ ° Ðsentence€even€if€a€different€result€were€preferred.€€òòState€v.€Fletcheróó,€805€S.W.2d€785,€789€(Tenn.Ð œì ÐCrim.€App.€1991).€€Here,€the€record€reflects€that€the€trial€court€considered€the€sentencing€principlesÐ ˆØ Ðand€all€relevant€evidence,€but€inappropriately€applied€enhancement€factors€to€Defendantððs€sentenceÐ tÄ Ðfor€felony€DUI.€€Therefore,€our€review€is€òòdeóó€òònovoóó€without€a€presumption€of€correctness.Ð `° ÐÌà  à€The€trial€court€imposed€sentences€of€eleven€months€and€twenty„nine€days€for€DefendantððsÐ 8 ˆ ÐClass€A€misdemeanor€convictions€for€child€endangerment€and€driving€while€license€revoked,€andÐ $ t Ða€sentence€of€two€years€for€Defendantððs€felony€DUI€conviction.€€The€trial€court€also€denied€any€formÐ  ` Ðof€alternative€sentencing€and€ordered€that€all€sentences€be€served€concurrently,€for€an€effectiveÐ ü L  Ðsentence€of€two€years€confinement.€€In€determining€the€length€of€Defendantððs€sentences,€the€recordÐ è 8  Ðreveals€that€the€trial€court€used€enhancement€factor€(1),€ð ð[t]he€defendant€has€a€previous€history€ofÐ Ô$  Ðcriminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€the€appropriateÐ À  Ðrange,ðð€to€enhance€the€sentences€for€all€three€convictions;€enhancement€factor€(15),€ð ð[t]he€defendantÐ ¬ü  Ðabused€a€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€or€used€a€special€skill€in€a€manner€that€significantlyÐ ˜è  Ðfacilitated€the€commission€or€the€fulfillment€of€the€offense,ðð€to€enhance€Defendantððs€sentences€forÐ „Ô  Ðchild€endangerment€and€felony€DUI;€and€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16),€applicable€when€ð ð[t]heÐ pÀ Ðdefendant€had€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€human€life€was€high,ðð€andÐ \¬ Ðð ð[t]he€crime€was€committed€under€circumstances€under€which€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€aÐ H˜ Ðvictim€was€great,ðð€respectively,€to€enhance€Defendantððs€sentence€for€felony€DUI.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð 4„ Ððð€40„35„114(1),€(10),€(15),€and€(16)€(1997).Ð  p ÐÌà  àò òA.€€Enhancement€Factor€(1)ó óÐ øH ÐÌà  àDefendant€first€argues€that€enhancement€factor€(1),€requiring€the€defendant€have€ð ða€previousÐ Ð  Ðhistory€of€criminal€convictions€or€criminal€behavior€in€addition€to€those€necessary€to€establish€theÐ ¼  Ðappropriate€rangeðð€for€the€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„114(1),€is€inapplicable€to€her€felonyÐ ¨ø ÐDUI€offense.€€She€contends€that,€because€the€prior€convictions€were€already€used€to€enhance€theÐ ”ä Ðoffense€from€a€misdemeanor€to€a€felony€classification,€using€them€to€also€enhance€the€length€of€herÐ €Ð Ðsentence€constitutes€ð ðdouble€enhancement,ðð€which€is€precluded€by€law.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àIt€appears€that€Defendant€is€confusing€the€considerations€necessary€to€determine€her€sentenceÐ D!” Ðrange€classification€with€the€length€of€her€sentence€within€the€range.€€Defendant€was€sentenced€asÐ 0"€  Ða€Range€I€standard€offender.€€A€ð ðstandard€offenderðð€is€defined€as€ð ða€defendant€not€sentenced€as€(1)Ð #l! Ð[a]€multiple€offender€as€defined€by€ðð€40-35-106;€(2)€[a]€persistent€offender€as€defined€by€ððÐ $X" Ð40-35-107;€(3)€[a]€career€offender€as€defined€by€ðð€40-35-108;€(4)€[a]n€especially€mitigated€offenderÐ ô$D # Ðas€defined€by€ðð€40-35-109;€or€(5)€[a]€repeat€violent€offender€as€defined€by€ðð€40-35-120.ðð€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð à%0!$ ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„105€(1997).€€€Since€the€requirements€for€sentencing€as€a€multiple,€persistent,Ð Ì&"% Ðcareer€or€repeat€violent€offender€all€involve€consideration€of€only€prior€òòfelonyóó€convictions,€itÐ ¸'#& Ðbecomes€evident€that€none€of€Defendantððs€prior€misdemeanor€DUI€convictions€were€used€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðestablish€the€ð ðappropriate€rangeðð€for€Defendantððs€sentence.€€Ð )à$( ÐÌà  àNotwithstanding€this€fact,€an€enhancement€factor€may€not€be€used€to€enhance€a€sentenceÐ h+¸&* Ðwithin€the€range€if€the€proof€used€to€establish€the€factor€was€used€to€also€prove€the€offense.€€òòStateÐ T,¤'+ Ðv.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597€(Tenn.€1994).€€Thus,€because€the€proof€necessary€to€convict€Defendant€ofÐ @-(, Ðthe€felony€DUI€offense€required€the€State€to€show€Defendantððs€criminal€record€contained€a€minimumÐ ° Ðof€òòthreeóó€prior€DUI€convictions,€these€may€not€be€used€to€enhance€Defendantððs€sentence.€€DefendantÐ œì Ðhas€òòfouróó€prior€convictions,€however,€and€the€fourth€is€therefore€applicable€to€establish€theÐ ˆØ Ðenhancement€factor.Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àò òB.€€Enhancement€Factor€(15)ó óÐ L œ ÐÌà  àDefendant€also€contends€that€enhancement€factor€(15),€applicable€when€the€defendant€abusedÐ $ t Ða€position€of€public€or€private€trust,€was€improperly€applied€to€her€sentences€for€child€endangermentÐ  ` Ðand€felony€DUI.€€In€general,€application€of€this€factor€requires€a€finding,€first,€that€defendantÐ ü L  Ðoccupied€a€position€of€trust,€either€public€or€private.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482,€488Ð è 8  Ð(Tenn.€1996).€€The€position€of€parent,€step-parent,€babysitter,€teacher,€coach€are€examples,€òòsee€id.óó,Ð Ô$  Ðand€there€is€no€doubt€that€Defendant,€as€the€parent,€is€properly€placed€into€this€category.€€WhetherÐ À  Ðor€not€a€position€of€trust€exists€also€turns€upon€the€nature€of€the€relationship,€namely,€whether€theÐ ¬ü  Ðoffender€occupied€a€position€that€promoted€confidence,€reliability,€or€faith.€€If€the€evidence€supportsÐ ˜è  Ðthat€finding,€then€the€court€must€determine€whether€the€position€occupied€was€also€abused€by€theÐ „Ô  Ðcommission€of€the€offense.€€òòId.óó€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àWith€regard€to€the€sentence€for€child€endangerment,€we€find€that€Defendant,€as€the€childððsÐ H˜ Ðmother,€occupied€a€position€of€trust€which€she€abused€when€she€drove€her€vehicle€in€an€extremelyÐ 4„ Ðintoxicated€state€with€her€child€in€the€car.€€We€have€little€doubt€that€the€child€would€not€have€beenÐ  p Ðriding€in€the€Jeep€with€Defendant€and,€consequently,€would€not€have€been€endangered€but€for€theÐ  \ Ðfact€that€she€was€his€mother.€€Consideration€of€this€factor€might€only€be€prohibited€if€the€proof€usedÐ øH Ðto€establish€the€abuse€of€trust€also€proved€an€element€of€the€offense€of€child€endangerment.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðoffense€of€misdemeanor€child€endangerment€is€committed€by€a€person€who€violates€Tennessee€CodeÐ Ð  ÐAnnotated€ðð€55„10„401€(ð ðDriving€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicantðð)€while€accompanied€by€aÐ ¼  Ðchild€under€thirteen€years€of€age.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„414(1)€(1998).€€Since€it€is€notÐ ¨ø Ðnecessary€to€prove€that€Defendant€abused€her€position€as€the€childððs€mother€to€establish€the€offense,Ð ”ä Ðfactor€(15)€may€be€considered€in€determining€the€sentence€for€child€endangerment€in€DefendantððsÐ €Ð Ðcase.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Troutmanóó,€979€S.W.2d€271,€274€(Tenn.€1998)€(contrary€to€felony€sentencingÐ l¼ Ðdeterminations€which€require€the€court€to€place€on€record€what€enhancement€or€mitigating€factorsÐ X ¨ Ðit€found,€the€misdemeanor€sentencing€statute€requires€a€trial€judge€to€merely€consider€enhancementÐ D!” Ðand€mitigating€factors).€€Ð 0"€  ÐÌà  àDefendant€contends€that€enhancement€factor€(15)€is€inapplicable€to€her€sentence€for€felonyÐ $X" ÐDUI€because€her€abuse€of€a€position€of€trust€was€also€the€basis€for€her€conviction€of€childÐ ô$D # Ðendangerment.€€We€agree€that€this€factor€does€not€apply€to€her€sentence€for€felony€DUI,€but€forÐ à%0!$ Ðreasons€other€than€that€given€by€Defendant.€€Enhancement€factor€(15)€is€generally€applied€inÐ Ì&"% Ðcircumstances€where€the€defendant€used€his€or€her€position€of€trust€òòto€facilitate€the€commission€ofÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€offenseóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Franklinóó,€919€S.W.2d€362,€366€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Harrisóó,Ð ¤(ô#' Ð866€S.W.2d€583,€588€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Nothing€in€the€record€supports€this€finding.€Ð )à$( ÐConsequently,€factor€(15)€does€not€apply€to€Defendantððs€sentence€for€the€felony€DUI€conviction.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÌà  àò òC.€€Enhancement€Factors€(10)€and€(16)ó óÐ T,¤'+ ÐÐ @-(, Ðà  àFinally,€Defendant€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€used€enhancement€factors€(10)€andÐ ° Ð(16)€to€enhance€her€sentence€for€felony€DUI.€€Enhancement€factor€(10)€is€applicable€when€the€proofÐ œì Ðshows€that€the€defendant€exhibited€no€hesitation€about€committing€a€crime€when€the€risk€to€humanÐ ˆØ Ðlife€was€high,€and€factor€(16)€is€applicable€when€the€potential€for€bodily€injury€to€a€victim€was€great.€Ð tÄ ÐSpecifically,€Defendant€contends€that€these€factors€cannot€be€applied€because€(1)€the€criminalÐ `° Ðconduct€necessary€to€prove€them€also€proved€her€conviction€for€child€endangerment,€(2)€the€courtÐ L œ Ðmay€only€consider€harm€to€the€victim€when€determining€whether€these€factors€apply,€and€(3)Ð 8 ˆ Ðenhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€may€not€be€applied€together.€For€the€reasons€following,€we€findÐ $ t Ðthat€factors€(10)€and€(16)€were€inappropriately€applied€to€enhance€her€sentence€for€felony€DUI.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àIt€might€seem€appropriate€to€apply€factor€(10)€to€Defendantððs€sentence€for€felony€DUI.€€It€isÐ è 8  Ðwell„settled€that€enhancement€factor€(10)€may€be€applied€in€situations€where€the€defendantððs€conductÐ Ô$  Ðcreated€a€òòhigh€risk€to€a€person€or€persons€other€than€the€victimóó,€even€when€an€essential€element€ofÐ À  Ðthe€offense€requires€proof€of€a€risk€of€death€or€serious€bodily€injury,€if€the€proof€used€to€establishÐ ¬ü  Ðfactor€(10)€can€be€separated€from€those€facts€necessary€to€prove€the€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,Ð ˜è  Ð910€S.W.2d€448,€452€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Ruaneóó,€912€S.W.2d€766,€784€(Tenn.€Crim.Ð „Ô  ÐApp.€1995);€òòState€v.€Johnsonóó,€909€S.W.2d€461,€464€n.1€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòcf.óó€òòState€v.€Butleróó,Ð pÀ Ð900€S.W.2d€305,€314€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(holding€that€factor€(10)€should€not€be€applied€òòunlessóóÐ \¬ Ðpersons€other€than€the€victim€are€at€risk).€€Clearly,€proof€which€would€establish€factor€(10)€wouldÐ H˜ Ðnot€be€necessary€to€also€prove€the€offense.€€Defendantððs€conduct€created€a€substantial€risk€to€the€lifeÐ 4„ Ðof€any€persons€that€might€be€in€the€path€of€her€Jeep,€as€well€as€that€of€her€son,€the€passenger.€Ð  p ÐNevertheless,€factor€(10)€may€not€be€applied€to€Defendantððs€felony€DUI€sentence€for€the€followingÐ  \ Ðreasons.Ð øH ÐÌà  àFirst,€we€note€that€factor€(10)€is€inapplicable€predicated€on€the€risk€to€Defendantððs€sonÐ Ð  Ðbecause€this€was€the€precise€ground€for€her€separate€conviction€of€child€endangerment.€€òòSee,€e.g.óóÐ ¼  ÐòòState€v.€James€Edwin€Harberóó,€No.€W2000„00462„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€1876601€at€**4,€CrockettÐ ¨ø ÐCounty€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Jackson,€Dec.€27,€2000)€òòno€perm.€to€app.€filedóó€(where€defendant€wasÐ ”ä Ðseparately€convicted€of€reckless€endangerment€based€on€the€risk€of€harm€to€the€passengers€in€theÐ €Ð Ðvehicle€with€him€at€the€time€of€his€accident,€factor€(10)€could€not€be€applied€to€enhance€his€sentenceÐ l¼ Ðfor€vehicular€homicide);€òòState€v.€Ricky€Williamsóó,€No.€E1999„00344„CCA„R3„CD,€2000€WL€772748Ð X ¨ Ðat€*3,€Cocke€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€June€15,€2000)€òòno€perm.€to€app.€filedóóÐ D!” Ð(application€of€factor€(10),€based€on€risk€to€children€in€house,€was€inappropriately€applied€to€recklessÐ 0"€  Ðhomicide€conviction€where€defendant€received€separate€reckless€endangerment€conviction€for€riskÐ #l! Ðcaused€to€children).€€Ð $X" ÐÌà  àApplication€of€factor€(10)€based€on€a€risk€Defendant€created€to€persons€other€than€her€childÐ à%0!$ Ðis€also€precluded€in€this€case.€€Granted,€the€use€of€factor€(10)€in€DUI€and€similar€cases€has€beenÐ Ì&"% Ðupheld€on€numerous€occasions€by€this€Court€where€the€defendantððs€dangerous€use€of€a€vehicleÐ ¸'#& Ðcreated€a€danger€to€other€motorists€on€the€same€roadway.€€òòSeeóó€òòBinghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€at€453€(factorÐ ¤(ô#' Ð(10)€applicable€to€sentence€for€vehicular€homicide€where€defendant€crossed€four€lanes€of€traffic€onÐ )à$( Ða€major€highway);€òòState€v.€Williamsonóó,€919€S.W.2d€69,€83€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(factor€(10)€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðappropriate€where€defendant€drove€her€car€while€intoxicated€on€Labor€Day€when€a€higher€numberÐ h+¸&* Ðof€people€use€the€road);€òòHarberóó,€2000€WL€1876601€at€**4€(factor€(10)€applicable€to€sentence€forÐ T,¤'+ Ðvehicular€homicide€where€defendant€ran€a€stop€sign€with€the€vehicleððs€lights€off€and€headed€into€theÐ @-(, Ðpath€of€an€oncoming€car);€òòState€v.€Mark€Summersóó,€No.€03C01-9606-CR-00235,€1997€WL€785677,Ð ° ÐHamilton€County€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Knoxville,€Dec.€4,€1997)€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1998)Ð œì Ð(where€appellant€drove€while€intoxicated,€crossing€into€oncoming€traffic€and€traveling€at€a€high€rateÐ ˆØ Ðof€speed,€he€presented€a€considerable€danger€which€warranted€application€of€factor€(10));€òòState€v.Ð tÄ ÐJerry€Douglas€Franklinóó,€No.€01C01-9510-CR-00348,€1997€WL€83772,€Davidson€County€(Tenn.Ð `° ÐCrim.€App.,€Nashville,€Feb.€28,€1997)€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€1997)€(factor€(10)€applicableÐ L œ Ðwhere€defendant€drove€twenty€miles€over€the€speed€limit€on€rural€two„lane€road€and€potential€forÐ 8 ˆ Ðcrossing€center€line€placed€other€drivers€at€great€risk).€€We€have€also€recognized€that€ð ðsome€activitiesÐ $ t Ðby€their€very€nature€cause€high€risk€to€human€life,ðð€andòòóó€specifically€identified€ð ðdriving€on€a€busyÐ  ` Ðstreet€under€the€influence€of€an€intoxicantðð€as€a€prime€example.€€òòState€v.€Jonesóó,€883€S.W.2d€597,€603Ð ü L  Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994).€€However,€factor€(10)€cannot€be€applied€based€on€a€high€risk€to€life€ofÐ è 8  Ðpersons€other€than€the€victim(s)€absent€òòsomeóó€proof€that€the€danger€existed.€€òòSeeóó€òòBinghamóó,€910Ð Ô$  ÐS.W.2d€at€453€(although€the€defendant€was€driving€very€early€in€the€morning,€factor€(10)€wasÐ À  Ðapplicable€where€the€record€established€that€she€encountered€at€least€two€other€automobiles);€òòcf.óóÐ ¬ü  ÐòòState€v.€John€D.€Neblettóó,€No.€01C01-9805-CC-00231,€1999€WL€743633€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ð ˜è  ÐNashville,€Sept.€24,€1999)€òòperm.€to€app.€deniedóó€(Tenn.€2000)€(trial€court€erroneously€applied€factorÐ „Ô  Ð(10)€where€incident€giving€rise€to€aggravated€vehicular€homicide€conviction€took€place€atÐ pÀ Ðintersection€of€a€state€highway,€but€the€record€was€silent€as€to€whether€other€motorists€were€actuallyÐ \¬ Ðpresent);€òòState€v.€David€T.€Jonesóó,€No.€01C01-9710-CC-00445,€1998€WL€917810,€Hickman€CountyÐ H˜ Ð(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€Dec.€21,€1998)€òòno€perm.€to€app.€filedóó€(factor€(10)€erroneously€appliedÐ 4„ Ðbecause€the€record€did€not€establish€that€other€persons€were€actually€threatened€by€the€defendantððsÐ  p Ðconduct).€€Facts€relevant€to€sentencing€must€be€established€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidenceð!ðmereÐ  \ Ðconjecture€will€not€suffice.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Winfieldóó,€23€S.W.3d€279,€283€(Tenn.€2000).€€Because€theÐ øH Ðrecord€as€it€presently€exists€in€the€case€òòsubóó€òòjudiceóó€does€not€contain€any€proof€that€other€persons€orÐ ä4 Ðmotorists€were€either€in€the€vicinity€or€placed€at€risk€by€Defendantððs€conduct,€factor€(10)€wasÐ Ð  Ðinapplicable€to€her€felony€DUI€sentence.€€We€may€not€assume€that€risk€existed€in€the€absence€of€òòanyóóÐ ¼  Ðfacts€in€the€record.Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àAt€one€time,€factor€(16)€was€also€considered€applicable,€even€when€risk€of€bodily€injury€wasÐ €Ð Ðan€element€of€the€offense,€under€circumstances€where€the€defendantððs€conduct€created€a€risk€ofÐ l¼ Ðbodily€injury€to€persons€other€than€the€named€victim€of€that€particular€offense.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Simsóó,Ð X ¨ Ð909€S.W.2d€46,€50€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995).€€This€holding€was€subsequently€called€into€doubt€byÐ D!” Ðour€decision€in€òòState€v.€Charles€Justin€Osborneóó,€No.€01C01-9806-CC-00246,€1999€WL€298220€atÐ 0"€  Ð*3€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€Nashville,€May€12,€1999),€which€found€that€òòSimsóó€had€been€implicitly€rejectedÐ #l! Ðby€òòState€v.€Binghamóó,€910€S.W.2d€448€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)€(ð ðòòBinghamóó€.€.€.€distinguishesÐ $X" Ðbetween€enhancement€factors€(10)€and€(16)€in€that€factor€(10)€may€be€supported€by€risk€to€personsÐ ô$D # Ðother€than€a€victim€of€the€convicted€offense€while€factor€(16)€may€notðð).€€This€issue€does€not€requireÐ à%0!$ Ðus€to€resolve€the€inconsistent€application€of€factor€(16)€within€this€Court.€€Factor€(16)€is€notÐ Ì&"% Ðapplicable€to€Defendantððs€sentence€for€felony€DUIòòóó€because€she€was€separately€convicted€for€theÐ ¸'#& Ðdanger€to€her€child,€and€the€record€contains€no€proof€of€any€other€victims.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àIn€conclusion,€our€review€reveals€that€enhancement€factors€(10),€(15),€and€(16),€were€appliedÐ |*Ì%) Ðin€error€to€Defendantððs€felony€DUI€sentence,€which€leaves€factor€(1)€as€the€sole€factor€properlyÐ h+¸&* Ðapplicable€to€enhance€Defendantððs€felony€conviction€based€upon€the€facts€in€this€record.Ð T,¤'+ ÐÐ @-(, Ðà  àAs€a€final€matter,€we€observe€that€the€judgment€forms€pertaining€to€Defendantððs€convictionsÐ ° Ðfor€DUI€and€driving€while€license€revoked€reflected€the€proper€statute€section€numbers€but€failed€toÐ œì Ðindicate€whether€the€convictions€were€a€felony€or€misdemeanor€and€what€class€of€offense€theÐ ˆØ ÐDefendant€was€convicted€of.€€Whenever€a€judgment€is€filed,€it€should€reflect€whether€the€convictionÐ tÄ Ðis€for€a€felony€or€a€misdemeanor,€as€well€as€the€appropriate€ð ðclassðð€of€the€offense.€Ð `° ÐÌò òà@FF%ìàCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€reverse€Defendantððs€convictions€and€remand€these€matters€forÐ  ` Ða€new€trial.€€We€hold€that€when€a€defendant€is€charged€with€driving€under€the€influence€of€anÐ ü L  Ðintoxicant€(ð ðDUIðð),€fourth€or€subsequent€offense,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€55„10„401,€a€Class€E€felony,Ð è 8  Ðguilt€or€innocence€must€be€determined€in€a€proceeding€separate€from€that€which€requires€the€jury€toÐ Ô$  Ðhear€evidence€concerning€prior€DUI€convictions,€and€we€find€that€it€was€also€reversible€error€to€allowÐ À  Ðproof€of€Defendantððs€prior€DUI€convictions€during€her€trial€on€the€charges€of€child€endangermentÐ ¬ü  Ðand€driving€on€a€revoked€license.€€We€also€hold€that€penalties€imposed€under€the€1998€amendmentÐ ˜è  Ðto€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€55„10„203(a)(1)€do€not€violate€an€accusedððs€constitutionalÐ „Ô  Ðrights€against€òòexóó€òòpostóó€òòfactoóó€laws.€€Finally,€upon€remand,€the€charge€of€driving€on€a€revoked€licenseÐ pÀ Ðshall€be€treated€as€a€Class€B€misdemeanor.Ð \¬ ÐÌÌà0  àà ° àà0(#(#àà ° àà0(#(#àà ° àà0(#(#àà ° àà0(#(#àà ° àà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à____________________________________Ð p(#(# Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àTHOMAS€T.€WOODALL,€JUDGE