ÿWPC  …# VUNa %¯ 0Ƶ{ 4ƒ — w@¦ 0 æ 0Dð 0J4 0T~ 0^Ò 0h0 0r˜ 0|  0†† 0  1uœ 0dU>uU*³B)Ý BDC# AMf¬³P_v~¯ D3-vÓ` 0@3 AOsÆÂ 0Dˆ D/Ì Bû˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ¡¨ 3|x  ý þ  D  D    e Ó€(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 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< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d####7Border 1dd€-%Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ¢Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌSeptemberÏ30,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó FÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓÔ€"ÔÔ€"ôÔThe€statute€in€òòFarrisóó€required€the€trial€judge€to€instruct€the€jury€on€parole€procedures€andÏsentencing.€€From€this€information,€a€jury€could€theoretically€compute€or€estimate€the€time€to€beÏserved.€€535€S.W.2d€at€609.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€VXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€"Ԝـ€ÙßR€&'%A1-j|` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€NASHVILLE€óóÌà@ àAPRIL€1997€SESSIONÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€01C01„9607„CR„00294€Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà à*à àDAVIDSON€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Seth€W.€Norman,€JudgeÌDWJUAN€L.€BRADFORD,à àà à*à à(Especially€Aggravated€Robbery)Ìà àAppellant.à àà àà à*ÌÌòòFor€Appellant:óóà àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellee:óóÌÓÓRoger€K.€Smith,€Attorneyà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ104€Woodmont€Boulevardà àà àà àAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌSuite€115ÌNashville,€TN€€37205à àà àà àLisa€A.€NaylorÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493à àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKymberly€Hattaway€HaasÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àWashington€Square,€Suite€500Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à222€Second€Avenue€North€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37201„1649€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àÌÌOPINION€FILED:_____________________ÌÌÌÌÌAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓò òòòÓ  ÓOPINIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€defendant,€Dwjuan€L.€Bradford,€was€convicted€of€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„403.€€The€trial€court€imposed€aÏRange€I€sentence€of€nineteen€years.€€ÌÌà àà àIn€this€appeal€of€right,€the€defendant€contends€that€Tennessee€CodeÏAnnotated,€Section€40„35„201(b)(2)(A)(i)€and€(ii),€the€statute€regarding€juryÏinstructions€on€the€potential€punishment€and€parole,€is€unconstitutionally€vague;Ïthat€the€jury€instructions€pursuant€to€this€statute€violate€due€process€of€law;€and€thatÏthe€terms€of€the€statute€contravene€the€separation€of€powers€doctrine.€€We€disagreeÏwith€each€of€these€contentions€and€thus€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€September€2,€1994,€the€victim,€seventy„three„year„old€Ann€Deol,Ïwas€walking€up€the€stairway€to€the€back€door€of€her€residence€on€Second€AvenueÏSouth€in€€Nashville.€€At€trial,€the€state€was€able€to€prove€that€the€defendant€thenÏemerged€from€underneath€the€stairway,€snatched€the€victim's€purse,€and€ran€intoÏan€alley.€€When€the€victim€began€to€scream,€a€co„defendant€shot€the€victim€in€theÏback,€thereby€causing€serious€injuries€and€hospitalization€for€a€period€of€fifteenÏdays.€€In€a€statement€made€to€the€police,€the€defendant€acknowledged€taking€theÏpurse€but€claimed€that€he€was€unaware€of€the€possibility€of€gunshots,€"If€I€knewÍsomething€like€that€would€happen,€I€wouldn't€have€[participated]."€€At€the€conclusionÏof€the€proof,€the€trial€court€provided€instructions€to€the€jury,€which€later€returned€aÏguilty€verdict€in€the€charge€appearing€in€the€indictment.€€€€ÌÌà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated,€Section€40„35„201(b)€(1990)€requiresÏtrial€courts,€upon€the€request€of€either€party,€to€instruct€jurors€as€to€the€possibleÏpenalties€for€the€crime€charged€and€its€lesser€included€offenses:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIn€all€contested€criminal€cases,€except€for€capital€crimesÏwhich€are€governed€by€the€procedures€contained€in€ððððÏ39„13„204€and€39„13„205,€òòupon€the€motion€of€eitherÏparty,€filed€with€the€court€prior€to€the€selection€of€the€jury,Ïthe€court€shall€charge€the€possible€penaltiesóó€for€theÏoffense€charged€and€all€lesser€included€offenses.€€ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€The€statute€was€amended€in€1994€to€include€the€followingÏlanguage:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(2)(A)(i)€€When€a€charge€as€to€possible€penalties€hasÏbeen€requested€pursuant€to€subdivision€(b)(1),€the€judgeÏshall€also€include€in€the€instructions€for€the€jury€to€weighÏand€consider€the€meaning€of€a€sentence€ofÏimprisonment€for€the€offense€charged€and€any€lesserÏincluded€offenses.€€Such€instruction€shall€include€anÏòòapproximate€calculation€of€the€minimum€number€ofÏyears€a€person€sentenced€to€imprisonment€for€theÏoffense€charged€and€lesser€included€offenses€mustÏserve€before€reaching€such€person's€earliest€releaseÏeligibility€dateóó.€€Such€calculation€shall€include€suchÏfactors€as€the€release€eligibility€percentage€establishedÏby€ðð€40„35„501,€maximum€and€minimum€sentenceÍreduction€credits€authorized€by€ðð€41„21„236€and€theÏgovernor's€power€to€reduce€prison€overcrowdingÏpursuant€to€title€41,€chapter€1,€part€5,€if€applicable.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€(ii)€€Such€instructions€to€the€jury€shall€also€include€aÏstatement€that€òòwhether€a€defendant€is€actually€releasedÏfrom€incarceration€on€the€date€when€such€defendant€isÏfirst€eligible€for€release€is€a€discretionary€decision€madeÏby€the€board€of€parolesóó€based€upon€many€factors,€andÏthat€such€board€has€the€authority€to€require€theÏdefendant€to€serve€the€entire€sentence€imposed€by€theÏcourt.ÌÌà8 àà8 à€€€(B)€€On€an€annual€basis,€òòthe€department€of€correctionÏshall€provide€each€judge€exercising€criminal€trial€courtÏjurisdiction€with€the€approximate€calculationóó€required€inÏsubdivision€(2)(A).€€Such€calculation€shall€be€brokenÏdown€to€show€the€effect€of€each€factor€used€in€makingÏsuch€calculation.€€If€the€calculation€provided€by€theÏdepartment€to€the€judges€changes€because€of€a€changeÏin€the€law€or€correctional€policy,€court€intervention,€theÏgovernor's€prison€overcrowding€policy€or€any€other€suchÏcircumstance,€the€department€shall€send€a€revisedÏcalculation€to€the€judges€as€such€changes€occur.ÌÌ(Emphasis€added).€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€this€case,€the€defendant,€charged€with€especially€aggravatedÏrobbery,€asked€for€jury€instructions€on€the€range€of€punishment.€€The€trial€courtÏcomplied€with€that€request€and,€in€addition,€followed€the€terms€of€the€amendmentÏby€including€the€possible€release€eligibility€dates€for€especially€aggravatedÍrobbery,€facilitation€to€commit€especially€aggravated€robbery,€aggravated€robbery,Ïand€robbery.€€The€actual€instruction€for€the€primary€charge€was€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àThe€punishment€for€the€offense€of€EspeciallyÏAggravated€Robbery€as€charged€in€the€indictment€in€thisÏcase€will€be€imprisonment€for€a€period€of€òònot€less€thanÏfifteen€years,€nor€more€than€twenty„five€yearsóó,€and€a€fineÏnot€to€exceed€fifty€thousand€dollars.Ìà8 àà8 àà àYou€are€further€informed€that€òòthe€minimumÏnumber€of€years€a€person€sentenced€to€imprisonment€forÏthis€offense€must€serve€before€reaching€the€earliestÏpossible€release€eligibility€date€is€four€point€five€yearsóó.€ÏThis€calculation€is€based€on€the€minimum€sentenceÏpossible€which€is€fifteen€years.€€However,€you€areÏinstructed€that€the€Court€will€set€the€punishment€after€aÏseparate€sentencing€hearing,€and€that€the€òòpunishmentÏwill€be€set€within€the€applicable€range€of€fifteen€toÏtwenty„five€yearsóó€after€review€of€all€the€relevant€factors.Ìà8 àà8 àà àòòWhether€a€defendant€is€actually€released€fromÏincarceration€on€the€date€when€first€eligible€for€release€isÏa€discretionary€decision€made€by€the€Board€of€PardonsÏand€Paroles€and€is€based€on€many€factorsóó.€€The€BoardÏof€Pardons€[and€Paroles]€has€the€authority€to€require€aÏdefendant€to€serve€the€entire€sentence€imposed€by€theÏCourt.ÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€Only€the€range€of€sentence,€maximum€fine,€and€the€releaseÏeligibility€dates€€were€changed€when€the€trial€court€provided€these€instructions€onÏthe€lesser€included€offenses.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant,€who€claims€that€the€portions€of€the€instructions€shouldÏnot€have€been€charged€to€the€jury,€relies€upon€Article€I,€Sections€8,€9,€17,€and€19,ÍArticle€II,€Sections€1€and€2,€and€Article€VI,€Section€19€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏand€the€Fifth,€Sixth,€and€Fourteenth€Amendments€to€the€U.€S.€Constitution€inÏchallenging€the€constitutionality€of€the€amendment€to€the€statute.€€More€specifically,Ïthe€defendant€insists€that€the€portions€of€the€1994€amendment€requiring€"anÏapproximate€calculation€of€the€minimum"€sentence€as€opposed€to€the€exactÏsentence€is€unconstitutionally€vague€because€it€invites€a€jury€to€speculate€as€toÏpunishment.€€Without€any€citation€to€authority,€the€defendant€also€complains€thatÏthe€statutory€provision€precludes€a€fair€and€impartial€jury€by€mandating€instructionÏof€only€the€minimum€number€of€years€to€be€served€without€any€reference€to€theÏmaximum.€€Finally,€the€defendant€contends€that€the€statute€is€an€infringement€by€theÏlegislature€on€judicial€powers.€€Article€II,€Section€1,€of€course,€divides€the€powers€ofÏgovernment€into€three€departments€while€Article€II,€Section€2€prohibits€any€branchÏfrom€exercising€"any€of€the€powers€properly€belonging€to€...€the€others...."€€Tenn.ÏConst.€art.€II,€ðð€2.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€defendant€bases€his€arguments€on€the€holding€in€òòFarris€v.€Stateóó,× ƒ( ××  ×Ï535€S.W.2d€608€(Tenn.€1976),€a€case€in€which€a€plurality€of€our€supreme€courtÍruled€that€a€1973€statute€permitting€the€jury€to€compute€the€time€a€prisoner€wouldÏserve€required€undue€speculation€on€the€part€of€the€jury.€€In€òòFarrisóó,€three€of€theÏjustices€concluded€that€the€1973€statute€violated€Article€II,€Section€17€of€our€stateÏconstitution€in€that€the€subject€matter€of€the€act€was€not€adequately€set€out€in€theÏcaption€but€only€two€of€those€justices€could€agree€that€the€statute€requiring€aÏcharge€to€the€jury€on€the€parole€procedure€was€"impermissibly€vague€andÏimpossible€to€apply."€€535€S.W.2d€€at€613.€€Justice€Ray€Brock€concurred€that€the€actÏwas€invalid€because€the€subject€matter€was€not€expressed€in€the€caption€butÏrejected€the€notion€that€the€statute€was€unconstitutionally€vague.€€Justice€BrockÏstood€alone€in€his€conclusion€that€the€requirement€that€trial€judges€charge€juries€onÏparole€eligibility€also€violated€Article€II,€Sections€1€and€2€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€as€an€infringement€upon€judicial€powers.€€òòId.óó€€The€final€two€justicesÏcomprising€the€1976€court€would€have€upheld€the€constitutionality€of€the€act.€€TheÏposition€of€three€of€the€five€justices€on€the€vagueness€issue€was€reflected€in€theÏdissent€of€Justice€William€Harbison:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThere€is€absolutely€no€evidence€in€any€of€the€recordsÏbefore€this€Court€that€the€jury€had€the€slightest€difficultyÏin€understanding€or€applying€the€statutes€in€question,Ïand€it€is€clear€from€listening€to€the€legislative€debates€onÏthis€Act€that€the€General€Assembly€felt€it€necessary€andÏproper€for€jurors€to€be€allowed€to€have€a€generalÏunderstanding€of€parole€procedures.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àThere€had€been€a€long€line€of€cases€in€this€state,€as€wellÏas€in€other€states,€in€which€jurors€had€repeatedly€askedÏquestions€of€the€trial€judge€as€to€the€effect€of€a€sentenceÏwhich€they€had€under€consideration.ÌÌòòFarrisóó,€535€S.W.2d€€at€617.€€ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àChallenges€to€legislative€acts€based€upon€vagueness€are€founded€inÏthe€terms€of€Article€I,€Section€8€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€guaranteeing€"theÏjudgment€of€his€peers€or€the€law€of€the€land."€€The€concepts€of€due€process€of€lawÏhave€been€derived€from€this€provision.€€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Boboóó,€727€S.W.2d€945€(Tenn.Ï1987);€òòMcCarroll's€Lessee€v.€Weaksóó,€2€Tenn.€215€(1814).€€So,€when€standardsÏestablished€by€statute€"'cannot€be€determined€with€reasonable€definiteness€thatÏany€particular€act€is€disapproved,'"€it€fails.€€òòDonathan€v.€McMinn€Countyóó,€213ÏS.W.2d€173,€176€(Tenn.€1948)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Lanesboro€Produce€&€HatcheryÏCo.óó,€21€N.W.2d€792,€795€(Minn.€1956)).€€An€ordinary€person€who€exercisesÏordinary€common€sense€must€sufficiently€understand€the€statute€so€as€to€be€able€toÏcomply.€€òòBig€Fork€Mining€Co.€v.€Tenn.€Water€Quality€Control€Bd.óó,€620€S.W.2d€515Ï(Tenn.€App.€1981);€òòWilliams€v.€State€Dep't€of€Health€and€Env'tóó,€880€S.W.2d€955Ï(Tenn.€App.€1994).ÌÌà àà àThis€court€has€addressed€the€vagueness€and€due€process€challengesÍpresented€here€in€at€least€two€other€cases.€€In€òòState€v.€Howard€E.€Kingóó,€No.€02C01„9601„CR„00032€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Oct.€22,€1996),€òòapp.€grantedóó€(Tenn.,ÏMar.€10,€1997),€a€panel€of€this€court€ruled€that€the€plurality€view€in€òòFarrisóó€would€notÏapply€because€since€that€ruling,€the€state€has€changed€from€jury„€to€judge„sentencing.€€Slip€op.€at€7.€€In€òòState€v.€Curtis€Lee€Majorsóó,€No.€01C01„9602„CR„00076€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,€at€Nashville,€July€30,€1997),€a€separate€panel€determinedÏthat€the€1994€amendment€was€not€unconstitutionally€vague.€€In€distinguishing€theÏruling€in€òòFarrisóó,€Judge€David€H.€Welles€wrote€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àJuries€were€provided€with€information€that€invited€themÏto€speculate€about€sentences€because€noÏapproximation€was€provided.€€The€òòFarrisóó€courtÏconcluded€that€"[j]urors€should€not€be€permitted€toÏspeculate€on€the€length€of€sentences,€discretionaryÏparole,€the€accumulation€of€good€and€honor€time€and€aÏwhole€conglomeration€of€contingent€events€which,€if€theyÏcome€to€pass€at€all,€will€come€to€pass€in€the€future."€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àSubsequently,€the€legislature€has€attempted€to€remedyÏthis€by€supplying€the€estimated€figures€to€juries€ratherÏthan€leaving€them€on€their€own€to€calculate€paroleÏeligibility€[citing€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201].€€ÌÌà@ à*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àAs€a€result,€juries€are€provided€with€a€figure€with€aÏcaveat€that€the€actual€time€served€may€vary.€€AlthoughÏan€"approximate,"€we€feel€that€this€figure€providesÏsufficient€definition€and€is€not€unconstitutionally€vague.ÏFurthermore,€jurors€are€protected€from€the€wide€openÏspeculation€that€was€apparent€with€the€statutory€sectionÍconsidered€in€òòFarrisóó.€€ÌÌòòMajorsóó,€slip€op.€at€13„14€(citations€omitted).ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIn€our€view,€the€1994€amendment€passes€the€vagueness€test.€ÏCertainly,€this€newer€enactment€is€no€less€definitive€than€the€statute€underÏconsideration€in€òòFarrisóó,€which€would€have€been€upheld€by€a€majority€of€the€justicesÏsitting€in€1976€had€the€enactment€been€properly€captioned.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€panel€in€òòMajorsóó€also€addressed€the€due€process€challenge€madeÏby€this€defendant€to€the€constitutionality€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„201(b)(2):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Defendant€also€charges€that€the€calculation€of€theÏminimum€number€of€years€to€be€served€unfairly€misleadsÏthe€jury€because€the€actual€time€served€may€be€longer.€ÏTherefore,€he€argues€that€he€has€been€deprived€of€dueÏprocess€and€the€right€to€a€fair€and€impartial€jury.€€WeÏdisagree.€€He€claims€that€the€suggestion€of€the€paroleÏeligibility€dates€may€vary€due€to€decision€by€the€Board€ofÏthe€Paroles€"based€on€many€factors"€invites€the€jury€toÏspeculate.€€However,€we€do€not€believe€this€differsÏsubstantially€from€the€charge€of€the€"possible€penaltiesÏfor€the€offense€charged€and€all€lesser€includedÏoffenses."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„25„201(b)(1).ÌÌà@ à*€*€*ÌÌà8 àà8 àThe€legislature€has€seen€fit€to€provide€juries€withÏcomprehensive€information€about€the€sentencingÏscheme€when€either€party€requests€such€an€instruction.€ÍThe€Defendant€complains€that€the€jury€was€unfairlyÏinformed€of€the€earliest€release€date,€but€the€latestÏrelease€date€has€also€been€provided.€€It€is€possible€thatÏthe€Defendant€could€be€sentenced€to€[the€maximum],€ofÏwhich€the€jury€was€informed,€and€serve€the€entire€termÏwhile€incarcerated.€€Thus,€the€maximum€sentence€wasÏcharged€as€well.€€We€cannot€conclude€that€theÏdefendant€has€been€deprived€of€due€process€in€thisÏcase.€€ÌÌòòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€15„16€(citation€omitted).ÌÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€panel€in€òòMajorsóó€also€considered€the€separation€of€powersÏargument:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€Defendant€next€asserts€that€the€relevant€portions€ofÏthe€statute€are€a€constitutionally€impermissibleÏencroachment€on€the€judicial€function€by€the€legislature.€ÏWe€disagree.€€Some€functions€of€the€three€departmentsÏof€state€government€are€necessarily€overlapping€andÏinterdependent.€€We€believe€this€is€particularly€true€inÏour€criminal€justice€system.€€òòSee€e.g.óó,€òòLavon€v.€Stateóó,Ï586€S.W.2d€112,€115€(Tenn.€1979);€òòUnderwood€v.€Stateóó,Ï529€S.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.€1975);€òòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€130ÏTenn.€100,€169€S.W.€558€(1914).€€ÌÌòòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€14„15.€€ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àOur€supreme€court€has€held€that€"[t]heoretically,€the€legislative€power€Ìis€the€authority€to€make,€order,€and€repeal[;]€the€executive,€that€to€administer€andÏenforce[;]€and€the€judicial,€that€to€interpret€and€apply,€laws."€€òòRichardson€v.€Youngóó,Í125€S.W.€664,€668€(Tenn.€1910)€(quoted€with€approval€in€òòUnderwood€v.€Stateóó,€529ÏS.W.2d€45,€47€(Tenn.€1975)).€€Our€court€has€recently€acknowledged€that€theÏ"authority€to€grant€paroles€is€not€judicial€in€nature€but€is€administrative."€€òòMonroe€E.ÏDavis€v.€Jimmy€Harrison,€Wardenóó,€No.€02C01„9607„CC„00242,€slip€op.€at€3€(Tenn.ÏCrim.€App.,€at€Jackson,€Jul.€2,€1997)€(citing€òòWoods€v.€Stateóó,€169€S.W.€558€(Tenn.Ï1914)).€€Nevertheless,€our€supreme€court€has€observed,€"it€is€impossible€toÏpreserve€perfectly€the€theoretical€lines€of€demarcation€between€the€[three]Ïbranches€of€government."€€òòUnderwoodóó,€529€S.W.2d€at€47.€€"There€is€necessarily€aÏcertain€amount€of€overlapping.€€The€three€departments€are€interdependent."€€òòId.óó€ÏFrom€all€of€this,€we€must€conclude€that€the€statute€did€not€infringe€upon€the€powersÏreserved€for€the€judiciary€under€the€state€or€the€federal€constitution.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€must€be€affirmed.€€ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ______________________________ÌDavid€H.€Welles,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌCurwood€Witt,€Judge€