ÿWPC{ …# V %a 0Æg - 43 G 0 V ` wäh 0DLUN 0JÞ 0T( 0^| 0hÚ 0rB 0|´ 0†0 0¶ 1uF 0d»U>U*] B‡B)¤DCÍ AMµ]v~ D3vÓà 0@– AOÖÆ% 0Dë D// B^˜HP LaserJet 4 PlusHPPCL5MS,ð,,,,,ð0nLhÎX(žjÆ$¡¡Ñ` ` ÑÑÜÜÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓHÚƒç"3|xª(º(3eB$¤¤Ý ƒjÆ!ÝÑ` °ÑÑܰÑÒ4°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÝ  Ýà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóPPQDRSDTUUV{WXDYZD[\]^U_D`Dabc{deDfDghDiDjDkçelUmDnopEqrDstDuUvDwxyDz{U|T}~D€D‚ƒD„…†‡ˆ‰ŠE‹ŒDŽ D‘’“D”•D–—U˜T™ÊšÊ›8eœUDžeŸÓ€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular2 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 d% Line 7 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  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ18,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`$$$$'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€"ÔÑ ` ÑÑ Ü ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  Ý›Ñ7€û^XdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÔ€#Ԝـ€ÙßR€'(&A1-j| ` ´- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌà@ àòòIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEóóÌà@ àòòAT€KNOXVILLEóóÌà@ àAUGUST€1997€SESSIONÌÌBRUCE€C.€SLATER,à àà à*à àC.C.A.€#€€03C01„9702„CR„00061Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à*à àKNOX€COUNTYÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à*à àHon.€Richard€M.€Baumgartner,€JudgeÌÓÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à*à à(Post„Conviction„„State€Appeal)ÌÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à*ÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appelleeóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€Appellantóó:ÌÌAllen€E.€Schwartzà àà àà àà àJohn€Knox€WalkupÌ603€Main€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌSuite€405€à àÌKnoxville,€TN€€37902à àà àà àMarvin€E.€Clements,€Jr.à àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌAubrey€Davisà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌAssistant€Public€Defenderà àà àà àNashville,€TN€€37243„0493Ì1209€Euclid€AvenueÌKnoxville,€TN€€37921à àà àà àMarsha€Selecman€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àCity„County€Building,€Suite€168Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à400€Main€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxville,€TN€€37902„2405ÌÌà àà àÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:__________________________ÌÌÌÌÌREVERSED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌGARY€R.€WADE,€JUDGEÇÓÓà@ àòòò òOPINIONó óÌóóà àà àThe€state€appeals€from€a€judgment€by€the€trial€court€reducing€theÏsentence€of€petitioner,€Bruce€Slater.€€In€1987,€the€petitioner€committed€bankÏrobbery.€€He€was€sentenced€in€1991.€€The€petitioner€sought€relief€from€the€length€ofÏhis€sentence€through€the€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act.€€The€primary€issueÏpresented€for€our€review€is€whether€the€petitioner€should€have€been€sentencedÏunder€the€1982€Sentencing€Act€or€the€1989€Sentencing€Act.€€A€secondary€issueÏrelates€to€procedure€and€jurisdiction.€€We€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€andÏremand€the€cause€for€a€recalculation€of€the€sentence.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€May€26,€1991,€the€trial€court€sentenced€the€petitioner€to€a€RangeÏIII,€thirty„year€sentence€under€the€terms€of€the€1989€Criminal€Code.€€Thereafter,€theÏpetitioner€filed€this€petition€alleging€his€counsel€was€ineffective€for€failing€to€ensureÏhe€was€sentenced€in€accordance€with€law.€€At€the€conclusion€of€the€evidentiaryÏhearing,€the€trial€court€applied€the€1989€Act€and€entered€an€order€reducing€theÏpetitioner's€sentence€to€Range€III,€fifteen€years.ÌÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  Óà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„117€provides€that€personsÏsentenced€after€November€1,€1989,€for€crimes€committed€between€July€1,€1982,Íand€November€1,€1989,€must€be€sentenced€under€the€1989€Act,€"[u]nless€prohibitedÏby€the€United€States€or€Tennessee€Constitution."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„117(b).€ÏAlso,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„112€provides€that€if€the€1989€Act€provides€for€aÏ"lesser€penalty,"€punishment€shall€be€imposed€in€accordance€with€the€1989€Act.ÌÌà àà àIn€òòState€v.€Pearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€879€(Tenn.€1993),€our€supreme€courtÏset€forth€guidelines€for€making€certain€the€sentence€imposed€is€constitutional:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ[I]n€order€to€comply€with€the€ex€post€facto€prohibitions€ofÏthe€U.S.€and€Tennessee€Constitutions,€trial€court€judgesÏimposing€sentences€after€the€effective€date€of€the€1989Ïstatute,€for€crimes€committed€prior€thereto,€mustÏcalculate€the€appropriate€sentence€under€both€the€1982Ïstatute€and€the€1989€statute,€in€their€entirety,€and€thenÏimpose€the€lesser€sentence€of€the€two.€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àThis€petitioner€was€convicted€of€bank€robbery.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€39„2„502€(repealed€1989).€€The€judgment€form€reflects€that€the€trial€court,€relyingÏon€the€1989€Act,€treated€the€offense€as€a€Class€B€felony€and€imposed€a€Range€III,Ïthirty„year€sentence.€€The€statutory€range€was€between€twenty€and€thirty€years.€ÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112.€€Because€the€record€does€not€contain€any€of€theÏproceedings€from€the€original€trial,€sentencing€hearing,€or€direct€appeal,€we€cannotÏdetermine€how€the€trial€judge€arrived€at€a€thirty„year€sentence.ÌÌà àà àThe€petitioner€argues€that€when€the€trial€court€imposed€sentence,€itÏmisclassified€the€bank€robbery€as€a€Class€B€felony.€€The€petitioner€insists€that€it€wasÏa€Class€C€felony€under€the€1989€Act.€€A€Range€III,€Class€B€sentence€is€twenty€toÏthirty€years;€by€comparison,€a€Range€III,€Class€C€sentence€is€only€ten€to€fifteenÏyears.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„112(c).€€The€petitioner€pointed€out€that€the€1989ÏAct€does€not€recognize€a€separate€crime€of€bank€robbery.€€Instead,€the€Act€bothÏdefines€and€provides€punishment€for€robbery,€aggravated€robbery,€and€especiallyÏaggravated€robbery.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€€39„13„401,€„402,€„403.€€At€the€post„conviction€hearing,€the€petitioner€argued€that€because€the€elements€of€the€offenseÏof€bank€robbery€most€closely€matched€the€elements€of€simple€robbery€under€theÏ1989€Act,€a€bank€robbery€must€be€classified€as€a€robbery,€€a€Class€C€felony.€€òòSeeóóÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„401.€€The€trial€court€agreed€and€reduced€the€sentence€toÏRange€III,€fifteen€years.€€€€Ìà àà àÌà àà àThe€1982€Act€did€not€grade€offenses€the€way€the€1989€Act€does.€ÏBank€robbery€was€not€a€graded€offense€under€the€1982€Act.€€In€conducting€aÏòòPearsonóó€analysis,€the€trial€court€would€have€to€calculate€the€sentence€under€bothÏthe€1982€and€1989€Acts€and€then€impose€the€lesser€sentence.€€858€S.W.2d€at€884.€ÏThe€question€is€how€to€calculate€a€sentence€under€the€1989€Act€for€an€offense€thatÏdid€not€survive€the€enactment€of€the€new€act€and,€thus,€is€not€graded.€€The€trial€courtÍcompared€the€statutory€elements€of€bank€robbery€with€the€elements€of€the€robberyÏoffenses€defined€in€the€1989€Act€and€graded€the€conviction€offense€accordingly.€ÌÌà àà àThe€legislature€provided€a€classification€system€for€convertingÏfelonies€defined€by€prior€law€into€the€categories€adopted€by€the€new€Act.€€òòRobertÏLynn€Godsey€v.€Stateóó,€No.€03C01„9308„CR„00280,€slip€op.€at€8€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.,Ïat€Knoxville,€Aug.€11,€1994).€€This€system€is€set€forth€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118€and€is€essentially€a€listing€of€every€offense€in€existence€prior€to€enactment€ofÏthe€1989€Act€accompanied€with€a€classification€as€either€Class€A,€B,€C,€D,€or€EÏfelony.€€In€òòGodseyóó,€the€defendant€was€convicted€of€grand€larceny,€as€defined€by€theÏ1982€Act,€but€was€sentenced€after€passage€of€the€1989€Act.€€òòGodseyóó,€slip€op.€at€2.€ÏHe€filed€a€post„conviction€petition€alleging€that€he€should€have€been€"sentencedÏunder€the€'theft€of€property'€statutes€in€the€1989€revision€of€the€criminal€code."€€òòId.óó,Ïslip€op.€at€4.€€Our€court€rejected€this€contention€and€ruled€that€Section€40„35„118Ïwas€controlling€on€how€to€treat€the€grand€larceny€conviction€for€sentencing€underÏthe€1989€Act.€€òòId.óó,€slip€op.€at€8.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€Sentencing€Commission€Comments€to€this€section€provideÏguidance:€ÌÒ ä ÒÒ € ÒÓÓThis€section€classifies€felony€offenses€in€title€39€whichÍwere€in€existence€prior€to€November€1,€1989.€€...€Ï[P]ersons€sentenced€on€or€after€November€1,€1989,€forÏan€offense€committed€between€July€1,€1982€andÏNovember€1,€1989,€must€be€sentenced€under€theÏprovisions€of€this€chapter.€€...€€The€new€definitions€andÏclassifications€cannot€be€utilized€for€offenses€whichÏoccurred€prior€to€November€1,€1989,€because,€in€manyÏinstances,€the€elements€of€the€offense€are€completelyÏdifferent.€€Consequently,€...€this€section€sets€forth€theÏfelony€classification€which€is€to€be€utilized€for€thoseÏoffenses€which€occurred€prior€to€November€1,€1989,Ïwhen€the€sentencing€takes€place€after€that€date.€€ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌà àà àTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€40„35„118€controls€the€disposition€ofÏthis€case.€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€883€(relying€on€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„118€to€conclude€that€"[u]nder€the€1989€statute,€first„degree€burglary€is€classifiedÏas€a€Class€C€felony").€€By€the€terms€of€that€provision€it€is€apparent€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€amending€the€judgment€to€indicate€that€the€petitioner€had€been€convictedÏof€a€Class€C€felony€instead€of€a€Class€B€felony.€€That€determination,€however,€doesÏnot€end€our€inquiry.€€We€do€not€have€the€record€of€the€original€sentencing€hearingÏbefore€us;€in€consequence,€this€court€can€neither€conduct€a€review€of€the€sentenceÏor€calculate€an€appropriate€sentence€under€the€terms€of€the€1982€Act.€€We€must,Ïtherefore,€remand€this€action€for€a€recalculation€of€the€sentence€under€the€1982€Act.€ÏThat€is€essential€to€ensure€that€the€petitioner€is€not€subjected€to€an€ex€post€factoÏviolation.€€òòPearsonóó,€858€S.W.2d€at€884.€ÌÌà àà àThe€state€argues€that€because€both€the€trial€court€and€the€post„conviction€court€imposed€maximum€sentences,€any€calculation€under€the€1982€ActÏwould€also€result€in€the€maximum€sentence€of€forty€years.€€The€state€reasons€thatÏthe€petitioner€has€not€suffered€an€ex€post€facto€violation.€€ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€1982€Act,€the€sentencing€range€for€bank€robbery€is€twentyÏto€forty€years.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„502€(repealed€1989).€€The€amount€of€timeÏthe€trial€court€could€lawfully€order€the€petitioner€to€serve€would,€however,€dependÏon€whether€the€petitioner€is€classified€as€a€"persistent€offender."€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðððð€40„35„106,€„109€(repealed€1989).€€ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€1982€Act,€a€Range€I€sentence€is€"not€less€than€the€minimumÏsentence€...€and€not€more€than€the€minimum€plus€one„half€(1/2)€of€the€differenceÏbetween€the€maximum€sentence€and€the€minimum€sentence."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððÏ40„35„109(a)(repealed€1989).€€Thus€a€Range€I€sentence€for€bank€robbery€would€beÏtwenty€to€thirty€years.€€A€Range€II€sentence€is€"not€less€than€the€minimum€sentenceÏplus€one„half€(1/2)€of€the€difference€between€the€maximum€and€the€minimumÏsentence,€and€not€more€than€the€maximum€sentence€as€provided€by€law."€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€40„35„109(b)€(repealed€1989).€€That€establishes€a€Range€II€sentenceÍat€between€thirty€and€forty€years.€€ÌÌà àà àWhether€the€petitioner€received€a€Range€I€or€II€sentence€wouldÏdepend,€in€part,€on€whether€he€would€qualify€as€a€persistent€offender€under€theÏolder€act.€€The€1982€Act€defines€a€persistent€offender€differently€than€the€1989€Act;Ïit€excludes€from€consideration€certain€convictions€that€are€over€five€years€old€andÏothers€that€are€over€ten€years€old.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„106€(repealed€1989).€ÏIn€contrast,€the€1989€Act€considers€"[a]ll€prior€felony€convictions€including€thoseÏoccurring€prior€to€November€1,€1989."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„107(b)(2).€€ThatÏthe€defendant€likely€qualifies€as€a€persistent€offender€under€the€1989€Act€does€notÏnecessarily€mean€that€he€would€be€so€classified€under€the€1982€Act.€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àIf€the€petitioner€were€a€standard€offender€under€the€1982€Act€andÏreceived€a€Range€I€sentence,€the€maximum€he€could€be€sentenced€to€would€beÏthirty€years€with€a€release€eligibility€of€thirty€percent.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„501(repealed€1989).€€Thus,€even€though€the€amount€of€time€ordered€under€bothÏacts€would€be€the€same€(thirty€years),€the€1989€Act€imposes€a€release€eligibility€ofÏforty„five€percent,€whereas€the€1982€Act€imposes€a€thirty€percent€release€eligibility.€Ì"[T]he€repeal€of€parole€eligibility€standards€previously€available€to€an€inmateÏimplicates€the€Ex€Post€Facto€Clause€if€the€effect€of€the€repeal€is€to€impose€a€greaterÍor€more€severe€punishment€than€was€proscribed€by€law€at€the€time€of€the€offense."€ÏòòKaylor€v.€Bradleyóó,€912€S.W.2d€728,€732€(Tenn.€App.€1995).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòLynce€v.ÏMathisóó,€_____U.S._____,€117€S.€Ct.€891€(1997);€òòWeaver€v.€Grahamóó,€450€U.S.€24Ï(1981).€€Ì€€Ìà àà àA€remand€is€the€proper€remedy.€€The€trial€court€must€impose€theÏlesser€of€the€two€possible€sentences.€€The€sentencing€should€be€based€on€findingsÏof€fact,€including€how€the€trial€court€arrived€at€the€specific€offender€classification€asÏwell€as€what€enhancement€factors€applied.€€ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  Óà àà àThe€petitioner€argues€the€state€has€no€right€to€appeal€the€post„conviction€court's€determination,€relying€on€the€statute€governing€when€the€stateÏmay€appeal€a€sentencing€determination.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„402.€€TheÏpost„conviction€ruling,€however,€is€governed€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„122Ï(repealed€1995),€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€order€granting€or€denying€relief€under€the€provisionsÏof€this€chapter€shall€be€deemed€a€final€judgment€and€anÏappeal€may€be€taken€to€the€court€of€criminal€appeals€inÏthe€manner€prescribed€by€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏAppellate€Procedure.ÌÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓThus,€the€state€has€a€right€to€appeal€the€trial€court's€granting€of€post„convictionÏrelief.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€3.ÌÌà àà àThe€state€argues€the€post„conviction€court€had€no€jurisdiction€toÏmodify€the€final€judgment€of€the€trial€court,€insisting€that€"the€post„conviction€court'sÏaction€amounted€to€it€going€behind€the€lawfully€entered€verdict€of€the€jury,€andÏreinterpreting€the€evidence€to€come€up€with€a€new€verdict€under€the€1989Ïsentencing€act."€€Our€court€has€rejected€the€notion€that€a€post„conviction€court€mayÏnot€correct€an€unconstitutional€sentence:ÌÒ ä ÒÒ  ÒÓÓThe€Post„Conviction€Procedure€Act€was€created€toÏaddress€and€remedy€constitutional€wrongdoing€in€theÏconviction€or€sentencing€process€....€€Effectively,€this€actÏprovides€procedural€authority€for€a€court€to€reopen€theÏoriginal€case€in€order€to€right€a€constitutional€wrong.€€...€ÏTherefore,€in€some€circumstances€when€the€remedyÏrequires€a€new€trial,€a€case€is€returned€to€the€pretrialÏstage,€while€in€other€circumstances€the€remedy€does€notÏrequire€a€new€trial,€but€may€require€returning€a€case€toÏthe€presentencing€stage.ÌÒ 4 ÒÒ X ÒÓÓÌòòSills€v.€Stateóó,€884€S.W.2d€139,€142„43€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(footnote€omitted).€€ÌWe€continue€to€adhere€to€that€view.€€ÌÌà àà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed.€€This€cause€isÍremanded€for€a€calculation€of€sentence.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à__________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àGary€R.€Wade,€JudgeÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________ÌPaul€G.€Summers,€JudgeÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌÔ% € ÔWilliam€M.€Barker,€Judge