WPCR b/tC NǠ7M?!H pm;ͯcjSlȚŕdd#1iO11E)sя%,# tb rLؕvpHp\60xJ^ye\I.H'SYmuN\!]P,dGu2YٵN?:*kud ׁ<,滭\g9W\s!_a.")W|Mɤh%:9x@b %\^ b 0nUNwD4H\ zk m #  +  }}NCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEbGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG 0OOOO B:: 0W D3 D-. 0K[[ AS 0 0Dc A1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularb. u3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptU\\IB01S08\KNOXCLERK3,,,,0 BlakelyRicky CrimenhancersreviewableNederAdkissonLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2BQ$ !.8dd8         0  9 d(|3w$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3w$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8dd8     _   8\XXdd8@tt(INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#( #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsAugust18,2004 L X\X #XX\ #STATEOFTENNESSEEv.STACYMCKINLEYTAYLOR J aliasRONALDLEETAYLOR X\X  ^ @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforSullivanCounty  ^ @@Nos.S47,106andS47,112PhyllisH.Miller,Judge  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200302458CCAR3CDFiledDecember29,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      Hayes,DavidG.,Judge,dissenting,inpart,withregardtosentencingmodification.    Themajorityconcludesthatmodificationofthedefendantssentencesforaggravatedassault d andtheftarerequiredinlightofBlakelyv.Washington,542U.S.___,124S.Ct.2531(2004). P   ForthosereasonsexpressedinStatev.RickyGroverAaron,No.M200202288CCAR3CD (x (Tenn.Crim.App.atNashville,Dec.13,2004)(Hayes,J.,dissenting),Ifindthatanysentencing d challengeavailabletothedefendantunderBlakelyisnowwaivedbecausethedefendantdidnot P objectattrialoronappealtowhatthemajoritynowconcludesisaconstitutionallyinfirmsentencing < scheme.Tenn.R.App.P.36(a).Afterreviewoftherecord,Idonotfindthatanysentencing ( modificationisrequiredforthedefendantsconvictionforaggravatedassault.Iagree,however,that  sentencingmodificationisrequiredforthedefendantssentencefortheft,inviewofthe  misapplicationofsentencingenhancerswhicharenotsupportedbytherecord.    ThemajorityopinesthatthesentencesviolateBlakelyand,ina harmlesserroranalysis, t  furtherconcludesthatanysentencingerrorsareharmless.Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(a).Notwithstanding `!  theirconclusionthattheerrordoesnotaffirmativelyappeartohaveaffectedthesentencing L"! determination,themajority,nonetheless,modifiesthesentences.Thus,althoughthiscourtisan 8#" errorcorrectingcourt,themajorityimplicitlyrejectsreviewofanyerrorstemmingfromaBlakely $$t# violation.First,Ifindthattheerrorisnotreviewableunderharmlesserroranalysis.Themajority %` $ citesasrelianceforharmlesserrorreview,Nederv.UnitedStates,527U.S.1,19,119S.Ct.1827, %L!% 1839(1990).However,theerrorinNederwasobjectedtoattrial,thusmandatingharmlesserror &8"& reviewonappeal.Id.at1832.Second,IfindthiscourthastheauthoritytoreviewallegedBlakely '$#' errorsunderthediscretionaryauthorityofplainerror.Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(b).#XX\#X\X ($(   Plainerrorreviewdiffersfromharmlesserrorreviewintwoimportantrespects.First,in *%* plainerrorreview,thedefendantbearstheburdenofpersuasionwithrespecttoprejudiceorthe +&+ effectonsubstantialrights.Inharmlesserrorreview,thegovernmenthastheburden.Second,while p,', bothplainerrorandharmlesserrorreviewconsiderwhetheradefendantsrightsweresubstantially \-(- _affected,plainerrorreviewhastheadditionalrequirementthatanappellatecourtthenmustdecide  whethertoexerciseitsdiscretiontonoticeaforfeitederror.Thatdiscretionmaybeexercisedonly  iftheerroralsoseriouslyaffectsthefairness,integrityorpublicreputationofjudicialproceedings.  UnitedStatesv.Monroe,353F.3d1346(11thCir.2003)(internalcitesomitted).Theassertedplain t errormusthavebeenofsuchagreatmagnitudethatitprobablychangedtheoutcomeofthetrial. ` Statev.Adkisson,899S.W.2d626,642(Tenn.Crim.App.1994). L    Themajorityconcludes,andIagree,thatthetrialcourtsmisapplicationofsentencingfactors $ t requiresmodificationofthedefendantssentencefortheft.Accordingly,Ijoininmodificationof  ` thissentencetoreflectasentenceofthreeyears.  L    Withrespecttothedefendantsconvictionforaggravatedassault,Ifindthattherecord $  overwhelminglysupportsapplicationofenhancementfactors(2)and(11)andtheenhancement   factorofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913102(d)(1).Becausethedefendanthasfailedto   establishprejudice,theprovisionsofRule52(b),whichrequirethatasubstantialrightbeaffected,   havenotbeenmet.Ifindnomodificationisnecessary.     Forthesereasons,Iwouldaffirmthedefendantsmaximumsentenceofsixyearsfor \ aggravatedassault.󀀀 H    `     h     ____________________________________ H    `     h     DavidG.Hayes,Judge x  4 #XX\#X\X#XX\#  X\X