WPC 8(+|sb $^5L'4 ;5X?SN5;EjxۻtcOh* pp 5`W6X$d=cknAs8E3XwX&[5ܟ2evՐ'~"o^@?nmv0a:Ita"<QR+=~ENcHXmKfGʌ~ L,ig@CYW}KLF߅܇Klֵ(a7'#h Xw|?DOWɥI&\1F)2>@-,%Nt;ґꦴe L Ƙ`obex>B539J΀!. 4ƃg^.}Z@=tP+DEŤwC6B$m# F UNQ % 0( L U: w@S 4    U: B D3 0D1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AOu  0D D/ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLl(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT,cAZ"Arial Regular DEDӀuM%3|x  X.XXX TUX X.   Ad FILED X.X TU  November16,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM ,cAZ"Arial Regular d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !  XTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TX.XXXXX.   r *<,(j 8` `@E ` 8ttxPX  rߛINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEATNASHVILLEJANUARYSESSION,1998STATEOFTENNESSEE,    ) p C.C.A.NO.01C019701CC00035    `     h     ) p    `  Appellant,  h     ) p    `     h     ) p MAURYCOUNTY  V. `     h     )   `     h     ) p    `     h     ) p HON.JAMESL.WEATHERFORD,    PHILLIPDREWCANTWELL,    )  p JUDGE    `     h     )  p    `  Appellee. h     ) p (ENVIRONMENTALVANDALISM)   @) ) D OPINIONCONCURRINGINPARTANDDISSENTINGINPART      ` WhileIconcurinmostoftheopinionoftheCourt,ImustdissentfromthoseportionsoftheprincipalopinionwhichindicatethatanacquittalofpreviouscriminalchargesprecludestheStatefromusingtheactivityallegedinthechargestoenhanceasentence.IcanfindnoconstitutionalorstatutoryprohibitionontheStatesrelitigationofactivityallegedincriminalindictmentsresultinginacquittalwhentherelitigationoccursatasubsequentproceedingwherethestandardofproofislowerthanacriminaltrial.Indeed,IfindamplecaselawtotheeffectthatsuchaϜrelitigationisquitepermissible.See,UnitedStatesv.Watts,519U.S.148,117S.Ct. /h*+ 633,136L.Ed.2d554(1997);Dowlingv.UnitedStates,493U.S.342,349,110S.Ct. 1X,- 668,672,107L.Ed.2d708(1990). ` Inthecasesubjudicethemajorityholdsthatthefollowingenhancement 6(23 factorsatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedSection4035114donotapplybecauseofϜacquittalsinotherchargesarisingoutofthiscaseofinvenvironmentalvandalism: :67 8 ` 8 ` (#` (#(1)thedefendanthasaprevioushistoryofcriminal...behaviorinadditiontothosenecessarytoestablishtheappropriaterange;   8 ` 8 ` (#` (#(2)thedefendantwasaleaderinthecommissionofanoffenseinvolvingtwo(2)ormorecriminalactors.    ` Withrespecttoenhancementfactor(1)themajorityfindsthattheappellantsacquittalofadditionalcountschargedintheindictmentprecludesrelitigationatasentencinghearingofthoseallegedcriminalacts.Regardingenhancementfactor(2)themajorityconcludesthattheacquittaloftheappellantsemployeesmakesthisacrimeinvolvingonlyoneactorandthatthereforeapplicationofthisfactorisimproper.However,theUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheld:8 ` 8 ` (#` (# [A]nacquittalisnotafindingofanyfact.Anacquittalcanonlybeanacknowledgmentthatthegovernmentfailedtoproveanessentialelementoftheoffensebeyondareasonabledoubt.Withoutspecificjuryfindings,noonecanlogicallyorrealisticallydrawanyfactualfindinginferences...(citationomitted)   Watts,117S.Ct.at637.Thus,atasentencinghearing,criminalbehaviorwhichhas   neverthelessresultedinanacquittalmaybesubmittedontheissueofsentencingsincethestandardofproofislower,i.e.,apreponderanceoftheevidencestandard.Id.;See,Statev.Carter,908S.W.2d410(Tenn.Crim.App.1995);Statev.Richard % " J.Crossman,WilsonCo.No.01C019311CR00394(opinionfiledOct.6,1994at '"$ Nashville)app.denied(Tenn.January3,1995)(holdingthatpreponderanceofevidencestandardappliesatsentencinghearings.) ` Althoughthecasescitedhereinabovelargelydealwithfederalconstitutionalandstatutorylawregardingtheuseatsentencingofchargeswhichhaveresultedinanacquittal,IfindnothingintheTennesseeConstitutionorourstatuteswhichwouldwarrantadifferentresult. ` Finally,althoughthetrialcourtdidapplyenhancementfactor(3),i.e.,thattheoffenseinvolvedmorethanonevictim,themajorityfindsintinappropriatetocountas :@68  victimsthoseindividualsnamedasvictimsinthecountsoftheindictmentforwhichthedefendantwasacquitted.Basedonthereasoningoutlinedabove,Iwouldaffirmtheuseofthisenhancementfactor,howeverbecausethetrialcourtneverconsideredenhancementfactors(1)and(2),Iwouldreverseandremandthiscaseforanewsentencinghearingwhereinthesefactorsandfactor(3)areconsideredinconjunctionwithoneanother. ` ForthesereasonsIconcurinpartanddissentinpart. `     h     __________________________ `     h     JERRYL.SMITH,JUDGE