WPC <rğr`vCĻr0yˤ2֏-65擯{vhFdD ir9vq{wtKꂻ I{Ch|B|~yZ "ה(򤲹 y~w%?Xi =]VJHny=. /ȕ݌^aB#̘ F\̋"x +#XH"_ϩj2ąCkXUcZzks ^>uO^aO%]A,U:Mp1\XE.a_P- o +vť?p^lT׿ߜf+7}0(pLNkn gW&Ya\x!~gDg?rmE:3y }PB΁b %\U@b 0UN*^ xw4 z   m n ~ D   #N_UNaaEb 0 B 0 D5e D- 0K ASe 0+ 0D A(9 Z(Times New Roman (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularO1 ~/:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Humphreys CrimRenneEfrenArellanoEstradaYoreckHagner S.CtGilliamBatcholderBatchelderBlakelyApprendireviewable a]nAdkissonaffect[sLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5\\IB01S02\CLERKJAC,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular- -(|G2$ !.8Ydd8         0  | d(|37$ !.8Ydd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|37$ !.8Ydd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ydd8     __    Y8XXdd8@hh2YINTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#Y2#Ԉ # @April13,2004Session F XXY #YXX#  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.PATRICIAWHITE&CRAIGWHITE  ? @@ XXY DirectAppealfromtheCriminalCourtforGibsonCounty  ` @@E E No.16216&162161L.T._Lafferty_,Judge  4 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@No.W200300751CCAR3CDFiledOctober15,_2004_   AV) ` dE<n` A o   #YXX#XX.Y  DavidG.Hayes,Judge,concurringinpart;dissentinginpart.    XS XXXThemajorityconcludesthatmodificationofthedefendant,PatriciaWhites,sentenceis Y requiredinlightoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsrecentdecisioninBlakelyv.Washington,542 B U.S.__,124S.Ct.2531(2004).Forthefollowingreasons,Imustrespectfullydissent. +{   First,thedefendanthasneversoughtmodificationofthesentencelength.Generally,review M byanappellatecourtextendsonlytothoseissuespresentedforreview.Tenn.R.App.P.13(b). 6   Second,anysentencingchallengeavailabletothedefendantunderBlakelyisnowwaived  becausethedefendantneverobjectedattrialtowhatthemajoritynowconcludesisaconstitutionally  invalidsentencingscheme.Tenn.R.App.P.36(a).InBlakely,theSupremeCourtdidnot  pronounceanewruleoflaw.Rather,itonlyprovidedanexplanationoftherulepreviously s  expressedinApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466,120S.Ct.2348(2000),withregardtotheterm \!   statutorymaximum.Clearly,thedefendantcouldhaveraisedthisissueunderApprendijustas E"! thedefendantBlakelydidinhiscaseatthetriallevelandonappeal.Here,thedefendantdidneither. .#~" Infindingwaiverunderthesesamecircumstances,thecourtinUnitedStatesv.Levy,379F.3d1241 $g# (11thCir.2004)observed, therulerequiringthatissuesberaisedinopeningbriefsservesvaluable %P $ purposes,asdoalloftheproceduraldefaultrules,whichiswhyweregularlyapplythem. %9!% Moreover,inUnitedStatesv.Cotton,535U.S.625,63134,122S.Ct.1781,178587(2002),the &""& SupremeCourtheld,afteritsdecisioninApprendi,thatthedefendantsclaimofrighttoatrialand ' #' findingbyajuryonafactusedtoenhancethedefendantssentencewasforfeitedbecauseitwasnot (#( raisedattrial.Accordingly,IfindanyBlakelyclaimwaived(1)forfailuretomakea )$) contemporaneousobjectioninthetrialcourtand(2)forfailuretoincludetheissueinherappellate v*%* brief.SeeTenn.R.App.P.3(e),36(a). _+&+   H,', _  Finally,becausetheissueiswaived,itisreviewableonlyunderthediscretionaryauthority   ofplainerror.Tenn.R.Crim.P.52(b).Rule52(b)provides, [a]nerrorwhichhasaffectedthe  substantialrightsofanaccusedmaybenoticedatanytime,eventhoughnotraisedinthemotion  foranewtrialorassignedaserroronappeal,inthediscretionoftheappellatecourtwherenecessary k todosubstantialjustice.Thiscourtispermittedtocorrectanerrornotraisedbeforethetrialcourt T onlywhen(1)thelowerrecordisclear,(2)aclearruleoflawhasbeenbreached,(3)asubstantial =  righthasbeenaffected,(4)thewaiverwasnontactical,and(5)considerationoftheerroris & v necessarytodosubstantialjustice.Statev.Smith,24S.W.3d28283(Tenn.2000)(adoptingthetest  _ articulatedbythiscourtinStatev.Adkisson,899S.W.2d626,642(Tenn.Crim.App.1994)).The  H asserted plainerrormust[havebeen]ofsuchagreatmagnitudethatitprobablychangedthe  1  outcomeofthetrial.Adkisson,899S.W.2dat642.      First,assumingthattheerrorisplain,myreviewoftherecordfailstodemonstratethatthe   fifthfactorofplainerroranalysisissatisfied.Theproofattrialestablishedbeyondareasonable   doubtthepresenceofenhancingfactors(3),theoffenseinvolvedmorethanonevictim,and(16), n  thedefendantabusedapositionofprivatetrust.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035114(4),(16)(2003). W  Furthermore,therecordestablishedthepresenceofmitigatingfactor(1),thedefendantscriminal @ conductneithercausednorthreatenedseriousbodilyinjury.Tenn.CodeAnn.4035114(1) )y (2003).Proofoftheseenhancingfactorsisnotindisputenoraretheychallengedonappeal. b Accordingly,Iconcludethatajurywouldhavefoundtheseenhancingfactorsand,whenweighed K againsttheonemitigatingfactor,wouldhavepermittedimpositionofasentenceofoneyearbeyond 4 thestatutoryminimum.Inviewofthesecircumstances,thedefendanthasfailedtoestablishthat  considerationoftheerroris necessarytodosubstantialjusticeorthattheerrorwouldhave  changedtheoutcomeofthesentencingdecision.SeegenerallyStatev.Howell,868S.W.2d238  (Tenn.1993).  Ѐ̀8   ` ThereasoningoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtinCottonissimilarto,but Z notidenticalwith,harmlesserroranalysis.Thecourtpreviouslyhadexplainedthat C invariablytorefusetoconsidererrorswhennoobjectionwasmadewouldbeoutof ,| harmonywithrulesoffundamentaljustice.Accordingly,ifthedefendantpointsto e plainerrorthataffectedsubstantialrights,thenanappellatecourthasdiscretionto N correcttheerror.Normally,althoughperhapsnotineverycase,thedefendantmust  7 makeaspecificshowingofprejudicetosatisfythe affectingsubstantialrights !   prongofRule52(b).Butsuchashowingisnotitselfsufficient.Anappellatecourt " ! shouldnotcorrecttheerrorunlessit seriouslyaffect[s]thefairness,integrityor #" publicreputationofjudicialproceedings.$#   8   ` ItwasthislattertesttheSupremeCourtappliedinCotton,concludingthat ]&!% whenthedefendantsdidnotobjectinthedistrictcourttothesentencingproceeding F'"& anddidnotattempttodisputeorcontroverttheevidenceinsupportofasentencing /(#' factorthatjustifiedthesentenceimposed,andtheevidenceofthefactorwas )h$( overwhelming,thenforfeitureappliesandreversalonappealiswhollyunwarranted.*Q%)     *:&* Peoplev.GeorgeCarlSample,No.C044445(Cal.Ct.App.,3rdD.Sept.13,2004)(internalcitations   omitted).    Fortheabovereasons,Iwouldaffirmthedefendantssuspendedsentenceoffouryears. k RegardingthemajoritysanalysisoftheapplicabilityofBlakelytorestitution,Ifindsuchanalysis T unnecessaryasIreadBlakelytobelimitedtosentencelength.Inallotherrespects,Ijoinwiththe =  majority.#XX XXS#XS XXX & v    `     h      p ______________________________       `     h      p DavidG.Hayes,Judge#XX XXS##