WPC (MH -Nؤ -*6 +:AH.|L|vJ[FzR'UN2z,imq0x-{/gQ :v|!X*^bcX2#Uu2EpNCѮ =ȲN~X#?@msc;bZmk,/!fD $ }~7M5Ώ1~uoEѧ3o\co@X\NB"إ`8HN?q 9SpT?BM$G|H! '\wIBd9 K&lR'zyR^tlCT,L2J4bla &[{1(7T 8{D\tTF+jHTިJ:4!̭?xO7*[+@+ 7Πba`"!Nyn3 U[cxm}OXW">lι\*lˏrb %\^ b 0nU NwD4H\ zk m    d * # NEb 0 B 0 D5q D- 0K ASq 07 0D AY1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular~/:i+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.wptU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0- -(|G2q7$ !.8)dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8)dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8)dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8)dd8     _  8XXdd8@hh$INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#)$#Ԉ  @ AssignedonBriefsAugust3,2004  @E E  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.JAMESJOHNSON   XX)@, ,  DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforShelbyCounty   @!!No.0003451ChrisCraft,Judge q  @*AV) ` dE< ` A߈  =  @~ ~ No.W200302009CCAR3CDFiledOctober20,_2004_Ԉ   AV) ` dE<u` A v      ` ThomasT.Woodall,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart. W    Iconcurwiththemajorityopiniononallissuesexceptthatportionwhichmodifiesthe O sentencetotwentyoneyears.IagreethattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsopinioninBlakelyv. # Washington,542US____,124S.Ct.2531(2004),questionsthevalidityofTennesseessentencing  scheme.IagreethatpriortoBlakely,thisCourtsholdingshouldbethatenhancementfactors(11) { and(17)couldnotbeapplied,butthattheremainingenhancementfactors,(2),(6),and(10),would O beapplicable.However,underBlakely,itisclearthatonlyevidenceofpriorconvictionscanbe #s usedtoenhanceasentencewithoutajurymakingadeterminationoftheexistenceofan G enhancementfactor,orwherethejurydeterminationiswaivedbythedefendant,orwherethe  applicationofanotherenhancementfactoris admittedbythedefendant.Theterm admittedby  Defendant,whileseeminglyclearatfirstglance,hasnotbeenconclusivelydefinedbyjudicial s decision.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinBlakelymayhavemeant admittedinthecontext G ofajudicialproceedingsuchasaguiltypleahearingwiththesolemnityofaguiltyplea.Or,the k Courtpossiblymeantanadmissionbyadefendantintestimonyatasentencinghearing.Thus,the ? meaningoftheterm admittedbythedefendantissubjecttodebate,andisbetterlefttoappellate  reviewwhenthatpreciseissuehasbeensquarelyaddressedbyatrialcourtandthereafterraisedon   appeal. k!   Itherefore,willagreewiththemajoritythatDefendant,inthiscase,didnot admit !c# enhancementfactors(6)and(10).MydisagreementwiththemajorityisthatIfeeltheappropriate !7$ dispositionofthiscaseisaremandforanewsentencinghearingwhereinthetrialcourtisinstructed " % tosentenceDefendantusingtheonlyenhancementfactorallowed,absentajurydetermination,and #& thatisDefendantspriorconvictions.Inthiscase,thetrialcourtdidanexceptionaljobindetailing c$' whichenhancementfactorsitappliedandthereasonstherefore.Obviously,thetrialcourtsentenced 7% ( DefendantinthiscasepriortotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsopinioninBlakely.However,it  &[!) appearsthatthetrialcourtplacedsomeweighton criminalbehaviorbyDefendanttoapply &/"* enhancementfactor(2),andthisconductwasnotbaseduponanypriorconviction.Whilethe '#+ ultimateresultsmightbethesame,IfeelthattheholdinginBlakelyisofsuchsignificancethatthe (#, sentencingshouldbedonebythetrialcourtunderthelimitationsprovidedinBlakely.Otherwise, [)$- inmyopinion,thisCourtisgoingbeyondadenovo review andisconductingdenovosentencing. /*%. Ithereforerespectfullydisagreewithmyesteemedcolleaguesinthemajorityopinionastothe +U&/ mannerofdispositionofthesentenceinthisappeal,andwouldremandforanewsentencing +)'0 hearing. ,'1  -(2    `     h     ___________________________________     `     h     THOMAST.WOODALL,JUDGE