ÿWPC—A …# V 0Da %¥ 0š« BE UHb D3ª 0ÞÝ 0D» UFÿ 0JE 0T 0^ã 0hA 0r© 0| 0†— 0 1u­ " 0d*wŽ4¤¸ ÇU6ÍB)DC, AKoU*º>äï"ïðððøàóØôË·¿v }ì†rYtÑÍ"fž$‹%ü(Q‹)Ü*HÜ+÷$.0/K1v~Y8vÓ×9UHª? AOò?ÆA@ 0DA D/KA BzA˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝX(rã$¡¡Ò°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€wX³ÿXXXÔÔ€wX³ÿXXwX³ÿÔÓ  ÓÑ  Ñ d<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular'ÿÿdxd(Ž(2—¼$¤¤Ý ƒã!ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€wXÂXXXÔÔ€wXÂXXwXÂÔÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó´.Courier New 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)r#P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓÓ€  DÒ È˜Œ¸Þ3|x Hñ< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d''''7Border 1dd€(Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial 4Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ€*ÔÔ€*ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€*XÔÌÌDecemberÏ2,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏW.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó åÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„202€(1982).Ì åÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„2„501€(1982).Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(1990).Ì æÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1990).Ì îÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(b)(1991).Ì éÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„12„101(a)€(1991).Ì êÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„1307(c)€(1991).Ì ­Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversed€Dentonððs€convictionÏfor€carrying€a€weapon.€€Although€we€agree€with€the€result€reachedÏby€the€intermediate€court,€we€€reverse€this€conviction€onÏdifferent€grounds.€€òòSeeóó€òòinfraóó,€Part€IV.Ì ýÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòState€v.€Brownóó,€756€S.W.2d€700€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).Ì ÿÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòState€v.€Brownóó,€756€S.W.2d€700€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1988).€€Ì âÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝEven€if€we€were€to€consider€this€issue€on€its€merits,€itÏwould€not€provide€a€basis€for€reversal€of€Brownððs€convictions.€ÏFelony€murder€and€robbery€are€distinct€offenses€and€do€not€requireÏthe€same€evidence€to€prove.€Further,€the€statutes€defining€theseÏoffenses€serve€different€purposes.Ì øÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó,€284€U.S.€299€(1932).Ì OÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThere€are,€of€course,€exceptions€to€the€prohibitions€againstÏsuccessive€prosecutions.€€For€instance,€the€double€jeopardyÏguarantee€does€not€prohibit€retrial€after€a€conviction€has€beenÏset€aside€at€a€defendantððs€request.€€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395ÏU.S.€711,€720€(1969).€€A€defendant€who€has€already€been€convictedÏof€a€lesser€offense€may€be€prosecuted€on€the€greater€offense€if€anÏelement€of€the€greater€offense€had€not€occurred€at€the€time€ofÏprosecution€for€the€lesser€offense.€€òòJeffers€v.€United€Statesóó,€432ÏU.S.€137€(1977);€òòDiaz€v.€United€Statesóó,€223€U.S.€442€(1912);€òòStateÏv.€Mitchellóó,€682€S.W.2d€918,€919€(Tenn.€1984).Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWhen€the€legislature€has€made€its€intent€clear€thatÏcumulative€punishment€is€intended,€such€as€in€the€case€of€felonyÏmurder€and€the€underlying€felony,€see€òòState€v.€Blackburnóó,€694ÏS.W.2d€934€(Tenn.€1985),€our€analysis€under€òòBlackóó€is€pretermitted.€€€€€€Ì \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝOur€decision€today€is€predicated€on€Article€I,€ðð€10€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution,€and€we€acknowledge€that€under€the€federalÏdouble€jeopardy€clause,€the€result€would€be€different.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnitedÏStates€v.€Dixonóó,€509€U.S.€688,€113€S.Ct.€2849,€125€L.Ed.2d€556Ï(1993).€€In€òòDixonóó,€the€Supreme€Court€overruled€òòGrady€v.€Corbinóó,Ï495€U.S.€508,€110€S.Ct.€2084,€109€L.Ed.2d€548€(1990),€and€limitedÏfederal€double€jeopardy€analysis€to€the€òòBlockburgeróó€test.€€òòDixonóó,Ï113€S.Ct.€at€2860.€€Although€in€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,€878€S.W.2dÏ530€(Tenn.€1994),€we€applied€òòBlockburgeróó€to€determine€the€doubleÏjeopardy€issue,€òòStephensonóó€involved€a€federal€double€jeopardyÏissue.Ì òÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòState€v.€Irvinóó,€603€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1980).Ì GÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòState€v.€Pelayoóó,€881€S.W.2d€7,€12„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1994);€òòState€v.€Warrenóó,€750€S.W.2d€751,€754€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1988).Ì öÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝòòState€v.€Loweryóó,€667€S.W.2d€52,€54€(Tenn.€1984).Ì >Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„13„102(a)(1)(B)€(1991).€€AggravatedÏassault€is€an€assault€as€defined€in€ðð€39„13„101€where€either€theÏvictim€suffers€ð ðserious€bodily€injury,ðð€as€defined€at€ðð€39„11„106(a)(33),€or€the€defendant€uses€or€displays€a€deadly€weapon.€€InÏthis€case,€the€prosecution€could€have€proceeded€under€eitherÏtheory€but€chose€to€rely€on€the€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.Ì íÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„17„1307(c)(1)€(1991).Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€39„12„101€(attempts),€39„13„211(a)Ï(voluntary€manslaughter)€(1991).€€Denton€was€charged€withÏattempted€second„degree€murder.€€Attempted€voluntary€manslaughterÏis€a€lesser€included€offense€of€that€charge.€€òòState€v.€Stephensonóó,Ï878€S.W.2d€530,€549€(Tenn.€1994);€òòHoward€v.€Stateóó,€506€S.W.2d€951,Ï954€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1973).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€find€the€phrase€ð ðmay€be€òòprosecutedóó€under€eitherðð€somewhatÏtroublesome,€since€that€language€could€be€interpreted€asÏpermitting€the€State€to€indict€on€only€one€offense€where€twoÏstatutory€offenses€may€apply€to€the€facts€presented€in€the€case.€ÏWe€reject€such€an€interpretation.€€In€òòOhio€v.€Johnsonóó,€the€SupremeÏCourt€specifically€addressed€this€issue:ÌÌà8 àWhile€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€may€protect€a€defendantÏagainst€cumulative€punishments€for€convictions€on€theÏsame€offense,€the€Clause€does€not€prohibit€the€StateÏfrom€prosecuting€respondent€for€such€multiple€offensesÏin€a€single€prosecution.ÌÌ467€U.S.€493,€500€(1984).€€Furthermore,€a€contrary€intent€wasÏexhibited€by€the€legislature€in€its€adoption€of€Tenn.€R.€Crim.€P.Ï8(a),€which€requires€that€two€or€more€offenses€based€on€the€sameÏconduct€or€criminal€episode€be€joined€in€one€indictment.€€OurÏcourts€have€consistently€upheld€the€joinder€of€such€offenses.€€òòSeeóóÏòòState€v.€Beardóó,€818€S.W.2d€376,€378€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1991)(òòcitingóóÏto€pre„Rule€cases€òòGalbreath€v.€Stateóó,€187€Tenn.€669,€216€S.W.2dÏ689€(1948),€and€òòHalquist€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€88€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ï1972)).€€Under€the€particular€facts€of€this€case€and€to€avoid€theÏdangers€of€multiplicity,€(òòseeóó€òòState€v.€Desireyóó,€909€S.W.2d€20,€27Ï(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995)),€the€trial€court€should€have€instructedÏthe€jury€that€they€could€convict€on€only€aggravated€assault€orÏattempted€voluntary€manslaughter.€€We€think€such€error€is€cured€byÏour€ruling€in€this€case€reversing€the€conviction€for€attemptedÏvoluntary€manslaughter.Ì€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò<à09Z 0Courier (W1) Regular€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€&ÔÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ÂXXdÈdÈ7ÑÞ ÞÌÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà àà à)à àFor€PublicationÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)à àFiled:€€December€2,€1996Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamsonÏCountyà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJOHN€MICHAEL€DENTONà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Henry€D.€Bell,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)€à à€€JudgeÌà àà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„S„01„9509„CC„00152ÌÌÌWILLIAM€DOUGLAS€BROWNà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€CountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEà àà àà àà à)à àHon.€Cornelia€A.€Clark,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€JudgeÌà àà àAppelleeà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€01„S„01„9509„CC„00153ÌÌÌòòFor€Appellants€Denton€and€Brownóó:à àòòFor€Appelleeóó:ÌÌJOHN€H.€HENDERSONà àà àà àà àCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌDistrict€Public€Defenderà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌFranklin,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREÌÙ€€ÙßR€)+(A1-j|é ` à. `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGORDON€W.€SMITHÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssociate€Solicitor€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOSEPH€D.€BAUGH,€JR.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àERIC€L.€DAVISÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAsst.District€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àFranklin,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌà@ àòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÌÌÌÌAffirmed€in€Part€and€Reversed€in€Part€(as€to€Denton)à àÌAffirmed€(as€to€Brown)à àà àà àà àà àà àBIRCH,€C.J.ÌÌÓÓÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÓ` °‚X˜XÓÑ7€ õÏ XXdÖXXdÈ7Ñà àWe€granted€review€and€consolidated€these€cases€in€orderÏto€consider€the€circumstances€under€which€imposition€of€twoÏconvictions€resulting€from€a€ð ðsingleðð€criminal€act€may€violate€theÏdouble€jeopardy€and€due€process€clauses€of€the€state€and€federalÏconstitutions€in€light€of€òòState€v.€Anthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€299€(Tenn.Ï1991).ÌÌà àWilliam€Douglas€Brown€was€convicted€of€first„degreeÏmurder€(felony)× ƒ, ××  ×€and€armed€robbery€accomplished€by€the€use€of€aÏdeadly€weapon.× ƒ- ××  ×€€In€this€post„conviction€proceeding,€he€contendsÏthat€one€of€the€two€convictions€is€barred€by€double€jeopardy.€€InÏaddition,€Brown€insists€that€these€convictions€violate€his€dueÏprocess€rights€in€general€and€under€the€rationale€of€òòAnthonyóó,€817ÏS.W.2d€at€299.€€However,€the€record€shows€that€Brown€failed€toÏfile€his€petition€for€post„conviction€relief€within€the€statutoryÍperiod€required€by€law.€€He€insists,€nevertheless,€that€ourÏholding€in€òòBurford€v.€Stateóó,€845€S.W.2d€204€(Tenn.€1992),€excusesÏhis€failure€to€comply€with€the€statute€of€limitations€and€that€heÏshould€receive€the€benefit,€if€any,€of€our€holding€in€òòAnthonyóó.€Ì€Ìà àAfter€a€painstaking€examination€of€the€record€and€aÏthorough€consideration€of€the€issues€presented,€we€find€thatÏBrownððs€double€jeopardy€claim€has€been€ð ðpreviously€determinedðð× ƒ. ××  ×€andÏthat€his€general€due€process€claim€is€time„barred.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€Further,Ïbecause€òòAnthonyóó€did€not€announce€a€new€rule€of€constitutional€law,Ïit€does€not€apply€to€Brownððs€convictions.€€Accordingly,€as€toÏBrown,€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€affirmed.ÌÌà àJohn€Michael€Denton€was€convicted€of€aggravatedÏassault,× ƒ0 ××  ×€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter,× ƒ1 ××  ×€and€possessing€aÏweapon€with€the€intent€of€using€it€in€the€commission€of€a€criminalÍoffense.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Denton€contends€that€his€due€process€rights€underÏòòAnthonyóó€and€his€rights€under€the€double€jeopardy€clauses€of€theÏfederal€and€state€constitutions€bar€the€imposition€of€the€threeÏconvictions.€€ÌÌà àFollowing€careful€examination€and€full€consideration€ofÏthe€record€and€the€issues,€we€conclude€that€only€one€of€the€threeÏconvictions€can€survive€double€jeopardy€scrutiny.€€Accordingly,€weÏaffirm€the€conviction€and€sentence€imposed€for€aggravated€assault.€ÏWe€reverse€the€convictions€for€attempted€voluntary€manslaughterÏand€possessing€a€weapon€intended€for€use€in€the€commission€of€aÏcriminal€offense.€€We€vacate€the€sentences€thereupon€imposed€andÏdismiss€the€respective€indictments.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  ÓÌà àWe€begin€with€òòBrownóó,€the€simpler€of€the€two€cases,€andÏwe€must€first€determine€which€issues€are€properly€before€us.€€InÏAugust€1985,€Brown€was€convicted€of€first„degree€murder€(felony)Ïand€armed€robbery.€€He€received€a€life€sentence€in€each€case,€toÏbe€served€consecutively.€€Specifically€rejecting€Brownððs€doubleÏjeopardy€challenge,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€theÏconvictions€on€January€13,€1988.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Subsequently,€this€Court€deniedÏpermission€to€appeal€on€April€4,€1988.€€On€September€23,€1991,€weÏreleased€òòAnthonyóó,€holding€that€when€the€offense€of€kidnapping€isÏcommitted€incidentally€to€another€crime,€in€that€case,€robbery,Ïand€the€attendant€detention€did€not€substantially€increase€theÏrisk€of€harm€beyond€that€necessarily€present€in€the€accompanyingÏfelony,€the€due€process€clause€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏbarred€the€conviction€for€kidnapping.€€òòAnthonyóó,€817€S.W.2d€at€306.€ÏIn€September€1992,€Brown€filed€this€post„conviction€petition.ÌÌà àBrownððs€double€jeopardy€claim€was€considered€by€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€in€his€direct€appeal;× ƒ5 ××  ×€therefore,€it€isÍa€ð ðpreviously€determinedðð€issue,€and€we€will€not€consider€it€onÏpost„conviction.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„112€(1990).× ƒ6 ××  ×€ÌÌà àThe€claim€based€on€general€due€process€principles€couldÏhave€been€raised€at€any€time€during€the€trial€or€process€of€directÏappeal.€€Instead,€Brown€delayed€almost€eighteen€months€after€theÏlimitations€period€expired€before€raising€this€issue€in€his€post„conviction€petition.€€Because€Brown€could€have€raised€this€issueÏin€a€timely€fashion€but€did€not,€we€are€statutorily€barred€fromÏany€further€consideration€of€it.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102Ï(1990).ÌÌà àBecause€òòAnthonyóó€was€decided€after€Brownððs€convictionÏbecame€final,€we€must€determine€whether€òòAnthonyóó€announced€a€newÏrule€of€constitutional€law€and,€if€so,€whether€that€rule€should€beÏapplied€retroactively.€€òòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748€(Tenn.Ï1993).ÌÌà àIn€òòTeague€v.€Laneóó,€489€U.S.€288,€(1989),€the€UnitedÏStates€Supreme€Court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[A]€case€announces€a€new€rule€when€it€breaksÏnew€ground€or€imposes€a€new€obligation€on€theÏStates€or€the€Federal€Government.€€To€put€itÏdifferently,€a€case€announces€a€new€rule€ifÏthe€result€was€not€òòdictatedóó€by€precedentÏexisting€at€the€time€the€defendantððsÏconviction€became€final.òòÌÓÓÌId.óó€at€301.€€(citations€omitted€and€emphasis€in€original).€€WeÏadopted€and€applied€this€test€in€òòMeadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€751,€andÏwe€apply€it€again€here€with€respect€to€òòAnthonyóó.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòMeadowsóó,€the€Court€determined€that€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó,Ï778€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1989),€announced€a€new€rule€ofÏconstitutional€law€on€the€standard€by€which€to€measure€probableÏcause€under€Tennessee€law.€€Applying€the€òòTeagueóó€definition€of€aÏnew€rule,€we€found€that€the€courts€of€Tennessee€had€ð ðcontinuallyÏfollowed€federal€precedent€with€respect€to€the€sufficiency€ofÏaffidavits€used€to€obtain€search€warrants€until€this€CourtððsÏopinion€in€òòState€v.€Jacuminóó.€.€.€.ðð€€òòMeadowsóó,€849€S.W.2d€at€752.€ÏThus,€as€the€opinion€in€òòJacuminóó€stated€a€probable€cause€testÏdifferent€from€the€test€under€federal€law,€òòJacuminóó€broke€newÍground,€and€its€result€was€not€dictated€by€precedent.€€òòId.óó€at€753.òòÏóóÌÌà àSuch€is€not€the€case€with€òòAnthonyóó.€€Prior€to€òòAnthonyóó,Ïthere€were€two€lower€court€opinions€that€applied€the€same€rule.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Stateóó,€574€S.W.2d€57€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1978)€andÏòòState€v.€Rollinsóó,€605€S.W.2d€828€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1980).€ÏFurther,€although€there€was€a€dearth€of€direct€Tennessee€case€lawÏon€the€issue,€numerous€other€jurisdictions€had€addressed€theÏrelationship€between€kidnapping€and€other€felonies€thatÏcharacteristically€involved€some€detention€of€the€victim.€€WhileÏthe€case€law€from€other€state€jurisdictions€does€not€constituteÏð ðprecedentðð€within€the€òòMeadows/Teagueóó€rule,€such€analyses€of€theÏissue€were€widespread€and€represented€a€body€of€persuasiveÏauthority€available€to€the€petitioner.€€In€light€of€the€previousÏintermediate€court€opinions,€we€hold€that€òòAnthonyóó€did€not€announceÏa€new€rule.€ÌÌà àAs€òòAnthonyóó€did€not€announce€a€new€rule€of€constitutionalÏlaw,€consideration€of€this€issue€in€Brownððs€case€is€barred€byÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„30„102€(1995).€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÍCriminal€Appeals€dismissing€the€petition€is,€accordingly,Ïaffirmed.ÌÌÓ  ÓIIÌÓ  ÓÌà àThe€salient€facts€of€record€in€Dentonððs€case€establishÏthat€Brook€Thompson,€the€victim,€and€some€friends€organized€aÏgraduation€party.€€€After€midnight€as€the€party€was€ending,ÏThompson€was€struck€in€the€head€with€a€bottle;€Denton,€however,Ïdid€not€participate€in€this€altercation.€€As€Thompson€was€leavingÏthe€party€to€obtain€medical€treatment,€he€was€approached€by€a€manÏhe€later€positively€identified€as€Denton.€€According€to€Thompson,ÏDenton,€armed€with€a€long€pointed€object,€ð ðcame€around,€he€cut€meÏright€there€(indicating),€and€came€around€and€stabbed€me€and€thenÏjumped€in€front€of€me€and€said€come€on€letððs€fight.ððÌÌà àDenton€initially€was€indicted€for€attempted€second„degree€murder,€aggravated€assault€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon,€andÏcarrying€a€weapon€intended€for€use€in€the€commission€of€anÏoffense.ò ò€€ó óAt€the€conclusion€of€the€trial,€the€jury€found€DentonÏguilty€of€aggravated€assault,€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter,Íand€carrying€a€weapon€intended€for€use€in€the€commission€of€anÏoffense.€€The€trial€court€sentenced€Denton€as€a€Range€I€standardÏoffender€to€six€years€confinement€for€the€aggravated€assault,€fourÏyears€for€the€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter,€and€two€years€forÏthe€weapon€offense.€€The€sentence€for€attempted€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€was€ordered€to€be€served€consecutively€to€theÏsentence€for€aggravated€assault;€the€sentence€for€the€weaponÏoffense€was€ordered€to€be€served€concurrently€with€the€other€twoÏsentences„„an€effective€sentence€of€ten€years.€€ÌÌà àOn€direct€appeal,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€reversedÏthe€weapon€conviction,€finding€that€the€weapon€offense€wasÏð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€the€aggravated€assault€offense€underÏòòAnthonyóó.€€Applying€the€òòBlockburgeróó× ƒ7 ××  ×€test€strictly,€theÏintermediate€court€concluded€that€aggravated€assault€and€attemptedÏvoluntary€manslaughter€were€different€offenses€for€double€jeopardyÏpurposes;€therefore,€the€convictions€for€both€offenses€wereÏaffirmed.€€ÌÌà àDenton,€as€stated,€attacks€the€convictions€on€dueÏprocess€and€double€jeopardy€grounds.€€Although€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appealsðð€opinion€relies€on€òòAnthonyóó€to€overturn€DentonððsÏconviction€for€the€weapon€offense,€we€prefer€to€base€our€holdingÏon€Article€I,€ðð€10€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€à àÌÌà àOur€disposition€of€the€double€jeopardy€issue,€see€infra,ÏParts€III€and€IV,€also€obviates€the€need€to€determine€whetherÏDentonððs€convictions€violate,€either€generally€or€under€theÏholding€of€òòAnthonyóó,€the€due€process€clause€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.€ÌÌà àWe€note€that€in€òòAnthonyóó,€we€held€that€when€kidnapping€isÏð ðessentially€incidentalðð€to€another€offense„„most€notably,€robberyÏand€rape,€then€the€due€process€provision€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution€prohibits€a€conviction€for€kidnapping.€€While€ourÏdecision€in€òòAnthonyóó€addressed€the€particularly€anomalous€nature€ofÏthe€kidnapping€statute,€it€is€conceivable€that€the€principle€ofÏòòAnthonyóó€could€apply€to€circumstances€involving€offenses€other€thanÏkidnapping.€€Ì€ÌÌÌ€à@ àIIIÌÌà àThe€double€jeopardy€clause€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€theÏUnited€States€Constitution,€applicable€to€the€states€through€theÏFourteenth€Amendment,€provides€that€no€person€shall€"be€subjectÏfor€the€same€offense€to€be€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€orÏlimb....ðð€€Article€1,€ðð€10€of€the€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏprovides€that€"no€person€shall,€for€the€same€offense,€be€twice€putÏin€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb."€€ÌÌ€à àAs€we€have€noted€many€times,€three€fundamentalÏprinciples€underlie€double€jeopardy:€€(1)€protection€against€aÏsecond€prosecution€after€an€acquittal;€(2)€protection€against€aÏsecond€prosecution€after€conviction;€and€(3)€protection€againstÏmultiple€punishments€for€the€same€offense.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€òòWhalen€v.€UnitedÍStatesóó,€445€U.S.€684,€688€(1980);€òòUnited€States€v.€Wilsonóó,€420ÏU.S.€332,€343€(1975);€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.€711,€717Ï(1969).€€In€this€case,€the€issue€falls€into€the€third€category,Ïi.e.,€multiple€punishments€for€the€ð ðsameðð€offense;€this€particularÏarea€of€double€jeopardy€law€has€presented€courts€with€the€greatestÏchallenge.€ÌÌà àOver€one€hundred€years€ago,€the€United€States€SupremeÏCourt€rejected€a€literal€reading€of€the€phrase€ð ðsame€offense.ðð€€InÏòòIn€re€Nielsenóó,€131€U.S.€176€(1889),€the€Court€held€that€theÏfederal€statutory€offenses€of€cohabitation€and€adultery€definedÏthe€ð ðsameðð€offense,€notwithstanding€the€fact€that€they€wereÏdistinct€statutory€offenses€with€differing€elements.€€As€a€result,Ïthe€Court€barred€prosecution€of€Nielsen€for€adultery€after€he€hadÏalready€been€tried€for€and€convicted€of€cohabitation.€€MoreÏrecently,€in€òòBrown€v.€Ohioóó,€432€U.S.€161,€169€(1977),€the€CourtÏreiterated€that€offenses€need€not€be€the€exact€same€statutoryÏoffenses€to€be€the€ð ðsameðð€under€the€double€jeopardy€clause€andÏbarred€successive€prosecution€and€cumulative€punishment€forÍgreater€and€lesser€included€offenses.€€òòSeeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJeffers€v.€UnitedÏStatesóó,€432€U.S.€137€(1977).ÌÌà àThe€key€issue€in€multiple€punishment€cases€isÏlegislative€intent.€€òòAlbernaz€v.€United€Statesóó,€450€U.S.€333,€344Ï(1981);€òòState€v.€Phillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€662€(Tenn.€1996).€€InÏòòGarrett€v.€United€Statesóó,€471€U.S.€773,€778€(1985),€the€SupremeÏCourt€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà àWhere€the€same€conduct€violates€twoÏstatutory€provisions,€the€first€step€in€theÏdouble€jeopardy€analysis€is€to€determineÏwhether€the€legislature€.€.€.€intended€thatÏeach€violation€be€a€separate€offense.€€If€[theÏlegislature]€intended€that€there€be€only€oneÏoffense„„that€is,€a€defendant€could€beÏconvicted€under€either€statutory€provision€forÏa€single€act,€but€not€under€both„„there€wouldÏbe€no€statutory€authorization€for€a€subsequentÏprosecution€after€conviction€of€one€of€the€twoÏprovisions,€and€that€would€end€the€doubleÏjeopardy€analysis.ÌÓÓÌThe€presumption€is,€of€course,€that€the€legislature€does€notÏordinarily€intend€to€punish€the€same€offense€under€two€differentÏstatutes.ÌÌà àIn€Tennessee,€whether€two€offenses€are€the€ð ðsameðð€forÏdouble€jeopardy€purposes€depends€upon€a€ð ðclose€and€carefulÏanalysis€of€the€offenses€involved,€the€statutory€definitions€ofÏthe€crimes,€the€legislative€intent€and€the€particular€facts€andÏcircumstances.ðð€€òòState€v.€Blackóó,€524€S.W.2d€913,€919€(Tenn.Ï1975).× ƒ9 ××  ×€€This€analysis€is€guided€in€part€by€the€application€of€theÏtest€announced€in€òòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó:€ÌÓÓÌà8 à[W]here€the€same€act€or€transactionÏconstitutes€a€violation€of€two€distinctÏstatutory€provisions,€the€test€to€be€appliedÏto€determine€whether€there€are€two€offenses€orÏonly€one€is€whether€each€provision€requiresÏproof€of€an€additional€fact€which€the€otherÏdoes€not.€€ÌÓÓÌòòBlackóó,€524€S.W.2d€at€919€(òòquotingóó€òòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó,Ï284€U.S.€299,€304€(1932)).€€The€òòBlockburgeróó€test€is€useful€forÏdetermining€legislative€intent,€but€it€is€not€conclusive.€€Ìà àÌà àIn€òòBlackóó,€the€Court€specifically€relied€on€òòDowdy€v.ÏStateóó,€158€Tenn.€364,€13€S.W.2d€794€(1928),€and€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,Í505€S.W.2d€237€(Tenn.€1973),€commenting€that€ð ðthe€principlesÏformulated€in€the€òòDowdyóó€case€.€.€.€and€reaffirmed€in€the€òòDuchacóóÏcase€are€correct.ðð€€òòBlackóó,€524€S.W.2d€at€919.€€We€turn€ourÏattention€now€to€these€two€early€cases.ÌÌà àIn€òòDowdyóó,€this€Court€set€down€one€of€the€guidingÏprinciples€for€resolving€double€jeopardy€punishment€issues:ÌÓÓà8 àð ð[e]ven€if€it€be€conceded€that€two€convictionsÏand€two€punishments€may€be€had€in€any€caseÏupon€separate€counts,€the€practice€is€notÏapproved,€and,€certainly€it€must€be€clear€thatÏthe€offenses€are€wholly€separate€and€distinct.Ï.€.€.ððÌÌà8 àà àThe€power€of€election€rests€with€theÏstate,€not€the€criminal,€and€the€state€shouldÏnot€split€the€transaction€so€as€to€subject€theÏaccused€to€cumulative€sentences€for€the€sameÏoffense€or€for€different€offenses€involvingÏthe€same€act€as€a€means€of€pyramidingÏpunishment€for€two€or€more€cognate€offenses.ÌòòÓÓÌDowdyóó,€13€S.W.2d€at€795€(òòquotingóó€òòPatmore€v.€Stateóó,€152€Tenn.€284,Ï277€S.W.€892,€893€(1925));€òòsee€alsoóó,€òòState€v.€Goinsóó,€705€S.W.2dÏ648,€650€(Tenn.€1986)(òòquotingóó€òòPatmoreóó).€€€€ÌÌà àIn€òòDuchacóó,€the€defendants€were€convicted€of€third„degreeÏburglary€and€of€carrying€burglarious€instruments.€€òòDuchacóó,€505ÍS.W.2d€at€238.€€The€defendants€broke€into€a€Coca„Cola€bottlingÏplant.€€When€discovered€by€police,€they€fled€out€the€back€doorÏleaving€behind€a€cutting€torch,€tanks,€a€prybar,€and€a€flashlight.€ÏòòId.óó€at€238„39.€€In€determining€whether€the€two€convictions€couldÏstand,€we€stated:ÌÓÓÌà8 àthe€majority€rule€and€clearly€the€rule€inÏTennessee€is€that€the€ð ðsame€transactionðð€testÏis€not€the€law,€rather€the€proper€test€isÏdirected€to€the€identity€of€the€offense€andÏhas€been€called€the€ð ðsame€evidenceðð€test.€ÏSimply€stated€the€test€is€that:ÌÌà8 àà8 àð ð.€.€.€.€A€defendant€has€been€inÏjeopardy€if€on€the€first€charge€heÏcould€have€been€convicted€of€theÏoffense€charged€in€the€secondÏproceeding.ÌÌà8 àà8 àòòð ðOne€test€of€identity€of€offenses€isÏwhether€the€same€evidence€isÏrequired€to€prove€them.€€If€the€sameÏevidence€is€not€required,€then€theÏfact€that€both€charges€relate€to,Ïand€grow€out€of,€one€transaction,Ïdoes€not€make€a€single€offense€whereÏtwo€are€defined€by€the€statutes.óó€Ïð ðIf€there€was€one€act,€one€intent,Ïand€one€volition,€and€the€defendantÏhas€been€tried€on€a€charge€based€onÏthat€act,€intent,€and€volition,€noÏsubsequent€charge€can€be€basedÏthereon,€but€there€is€no€identity€ofÏoffenses€if€on€the€trial€of€oneÏoffense€proof€of€some€fact€isÏrequired€that€is€not€necessary€to€beÏproved€in€the€trial€of€the€other,Íalthough€some€of€the€same€acts€mayÏnecessarily€be€proved€in€the€trialÏof€each.ððÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€239€(emphasis€added€and€citations€omitted).€€The€Court€thenÏcompared€the€statutory€elements€of€each€offense€and€the€proof€usedÏto€establish€each€at€the€trial€of€the€matter€and€concluded:ÌÓÓÌà8 ànone€of€the€evidence€required€to€prove€thirdÏdegree€burglary€is€necessary€to€make€out€aÏcase€of€carrying€burglarious€instruments.€€InÏaddition,€none€of€the€evidence€required€toÏprove€carrying€burglarious€instruments€isÏnecessary€to€prove€commission€of€third€degreeÏburglary.€€Therefore,€the€mere€fact€that€bothÏoffenses€grew€out€of€a€single€criminal€episodeÏdoes€not€make€them€a€single€offense€in€thisÏparticular€case.€€This€is€not€to€say€thatÏunder€different€facts€and€circumstances€that€aÏthird€degree€burglary€conviction€could€not€barÏa€conviction€for€carrying€burglariousÏinstruments.€€The€peculiar€facts€of€each€caseÏmust€be€examined€to€properly€ascertain€whetherÏthe€conviction€of€one€would€bar€the€other.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€240.€€In€denying€the€petition€to€rehear,€the€Court€stated:Ïð ðthe€test€is€whether€the€same€evidence€is€necessary€to€prove€bothÏoffenses.€€Herein€the€same€evidence€was€not€necessary,€therefore,Ïwhen€directed€to€the€identity€of€the€offense,€it€is€clear€that€theÏtrial€court€was€not€in€error.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€241.ÌÌà àòòBlockburgeróó,€thus,€provides€us€with€an€initial€test€forÏdetermining€whether€two€offenses€are,€in€the€abstract,€the€ð ðsameððÏfor€double€jeopardy€purposes.€€òòDuchacóó€provides€criteria€by€whichÏwe€analyze€each€case€to€determine€whether€the€offenses€are,€underÏthe€particular€circumstances€of€that€case,€the€ð ðsameðð€for€doubleÏjeopardy€purposes.€€òòBlackóó€directs€that€the€analysis€begin€withÏòòBlockburgeróó€but€also€clearly€requires€that€the€analysis€proceed€toÑ€:ÑÇthe€circumstances€of€each€individual€case.€€òòBlackóó,€524€S.W.2d€atÏ919.× ƒ; ××  ×ÌÌà àIn€òòBlackóó,€we€applied€the€òòBlockburgeróó€test€and€found€thatÏarmed€robbery€and€assault€with€intent€to€commit€murder€in€theÏsecond€degree€were€not€identical€offenses.€€òòId.óó€at€920.€€ApplyingÏthe€principles€of€òòDuchacóó,€we€further€found€that€ð ð[t]he€sameÏevidence€was€not€required€to€prove€the€armed€robbery€as€wasÏrequired€to€prove€the€assault€with€intent€to€murderðð;€therefore,Ïthe€two€convictions€did€not€violate€double€jeopardy.€€òòId.óóÌÌà àIn€addition€to€comparing€the€statutory€elements€of€anÏoffense€both€in€the€abstract€under€òòBlockburgeróó€and€as€applied€toÏthe€facts€of€the€particular€case€under€òòDuchacóó,€courts€considerÏother€factors€relevant€to€ascertaining€legislative€intent.€€TheseÍfactors€include€the€following:€(1)€whether€there€were€multipleÏvictims€involved;× ƒ< ××  ×€(2)€whether€several€discrete€acts€wereÏinvolved;× ƒ= ××  ×€and€(3)€whether€the€evil€at€which€each€offense€isÏdirected€is€the€same€or€different.× ƒ> ××  ×€€ÌÌà àAs€we€noted€in€òòGoinsóó,€ð ðgenerally,€if€a€criminal€episodeÏinvolves€several€victims€who€have€personally€been€victimized,€theÏevidence€could€sustain€multiple€convictions.ðð€€òòGoinsóó,€705€S.W.2dÏat€651€(òòcitingóó€òòState€v.€Irvinóó,€603€S.W.2d€121€(Tenn.€1980)(holdingÏthat€killing€more€than€one€person€in€a€single€automobile€accidentÏjustified€multiple€homicide€convictions)).€€In€òòGoinsóó,€however,€weÏheld€that€the€multiple€convictions€for€concealing€stolen€propertyÏviolated€double€jeopardy€because€there€was€no€evidence€that€theÏdefendant€concealed€the€stolen€items€on€several€separateÏoccasions.€€òòId.óó€at€651„52.€Discrete€acts€can€justify€multipleÏconvictions.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòPhillipsóó,€924€S.W.2d€at€662€(threeÍdiscrete€acts€of€sexual€penetration€supported€three€aggravatedÏrape€convictions).€€However,€a€single€act€or€assault€may€limit€theÏState€to€a€single€conviction.€€òòSeeóó€òòGoinsóó,€705€S.W.2d€at€651€(noÏevidence€that€the€defendant€concealed€the€stolen€property€on€moreÏthan€one€occasion);€òòGrant€v.€Stateóó,€213€Tenn.€440,€374€S.W.2d€391,Ï393€(1964)(advising€four€clients€to€commit€perjury€as€a€groupÏsubjected€defendant€to€one€contempt€charge);€òòState€v.€Pelayoóó,€881ÏS.W.2d,€7,€12„13€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1994)€(single€assault€involvingÏtwo€separate€stab€wounds€could€not€support€two€separate€assaultÏconvictions).€ÌÌà àA€single€act€and€single€victim€nevertheless€justifiedÏtwo€convictions€in€òòState€v.€Brittmanóó,€639€S.W.2d€652€(Tenn.€1982),Ïbecause€the€elements€of€aggravated€rape€and€incest€were€distinctÏand€because€the€statutes€served€different€purposes:ÌÓÓÌ€à8 àone€protects€children€under€the€age€of€13Ïyears€from€sexual€penetration€and€the€otherÏprohibits€marriage€or€sexual€intercourseÏbetween€persons€related€within€the€prohibitedÏdegrees.ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€654.€€ÌÌà à€In€sum,€resolution€of€a€double€jeopardy€punishmentÏissue€under€the€Tennessee€Constitution€requires€the€following:€(1)Ïa€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis€of€the€statutory€offenses;€(2)€an€analysis,Ïguided€by€the€principles€of€òòDuchacóó,€of€the€evidence€used€to€proveÏthe€offenses;€(3)€a€consideration€of€whether€there€were€multipleÏvictims€or€discrete€acts;€and€(4)€a€comparison€of€the€purposes€ofÏthe€respective€statutes.€€None€of€these€steps€is€determinative;Ïrather€the€results€of€each€must€be€weighed€and€considered€inÏrelation€to€each€other.ÌÌÌÌà@ àIVÌÌà àWith€these€requirements€in€mind,€we€must€now€determine€Ïwhether€Dentonððs€convictions€for€carrying€a€weapon€and€aggravatedÏassault€are€the€ð ðsameðð€for€double€jeopardy€purposes.€€We€thenÏdetermine€whether€Dentonððs€convictions€for€attempted€voluntaryÏmanslaughter€and€aggravated€assault€are€the€ð ðsameðð€for€doubleÏjeopardy€purposes.ÌÌà àWe€begin€with€òòBlockburgeróó€and€òòDuchacóó.€€The€offense€ofÏaggravated€assault,€as€charged€in€Dentonððs€case,€requires€proofÏthat€Denton€intentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly€caused€bodilyÏinjury€to€the€victim€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.× ƒ? ××  ×€€The€offense€ofÏpossessing€a€weapon€with€the€intent€to€use€it€in€the€commission€ofÏan€offense× ƒ@ ××  ×€requires€proof€that€Denton€possessed€a€deadly€weaponÏand€that€he€intended€to€employ€it€in€the€commission€of€an€offense.€ÏAs€defined€by€the€indictment€in€this€case,€the€weapon€offense€wasÏa€lesser€included€offense€of€the€aggravated€assault€under€theÏòòBlockburgeróó€test.€€Further,€to€use€a€deadly€weapon,€DentonÏnecessarily€had€to€possess€it.€€To€intentionally€or€knowinglyÏcause€bodily€injury€by€using€a€deadly€weapon,€Denton€necessarilyÏhad€to€intend€to€use€the€deadly€weapon.€€Thus,€in€this€case,€theÏevidence€submitted€to€prove€the€aggravated€assault€charge€byÏnecessity€established€the€charge€of€possessing€a€weapon€with€theÏintent€to€use€it€in€the€commission€of€an€offense.€€Under€theseÍcircumstances,€the€weapon€offense€is€a€lesser€included€offense€ofÏthe€aggravated€assault.€€Under€òòBlockburgeróó€and€òòDuchacóó,€the€twoÏconvictions€cannot€be€sustained;€therefore,€we€reverse€the€Ïconviction€for€possessing€a€weapon€intended€for€use€in€theÏcommission€of€an€offense€and€dismiss€the€indictment.ÌÌà àAs€stated€earlier,€the€offense€of€aggravated€assault,€asÏcharged€in€Dentonððs€case,€requires€proof€that€DentonÏintentionally,€knowingly,€or€recklessly€caused€bodily€injury€toÏthe€victim€by€use€of€a€deadly€weapon.€€The€offense€of€attemptedÏvoluntary€manslaughter€requires€proof:€€(1)€that€Denton€unlawfullyÏattempted€to€kill€the€victim;€(2)€that€the€attempt€to€kill€wasÏintentional€or€knowing;€and€(3)€that€the€attempted€killingÏresulted€from€a€state€of€passion€produced€by€adequate€provocationÏsufficient€to€lead€a€reasonable€person€to€act€in€an€irrationalÏmanner.× ƒA ××  ×€€Aggravated€assault€requires€proof€that€Denton€causedÏbodily€injury;€whereas,€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€does€not.€ÍAttempted€voluntary€manslaughter€requires€proof€that€DentonÏintended€to€kill€his€victim;€whereas,€aggravated€assault€does€not.€ÏTherefore,€application€of€the€òòBlockburgeróó€test€indicates€that€theÏlegislature€intended€to€allow€separate€punishment€for€each€ofÏthese€offenses.€€As€noted€earlier,€however,€our€analysis€does€notÏend€here.ÌÌà àBecause€the€evidence€in€this€case€consisted€of€a€singleÏattack€by€Denton€on€the€victim,€the€State€necessarily€relied€onÏthe€same€evidence€to€establish€both€the€aggravated€assault€and€theÏattempted€voluntary€manslaughter.€€Thus,€application€of€òòDuchacóóÏindicates€that€the€two€offenses€are€the€ð ðsameðð€for€double€jeopardyÏpurposes.€€Further,€there€is€one€discrete€act€and€one€victim.€ÏFinally,€the€evil€at€which€the€offenses€are€directed€is€the€same.€ÏBoth€aggravated€assault€and€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€areÏintended€to€deter€assaultive„type€conduct.€€The€common€purpose€ofÏthese€statutes€weighs€in€favor€of€a€conclusion€that€these€twoÏoffenses€are€the€ð ðsameðð€for€double€jeopardy€purposes.ÌÌà àNotwithstanding€the€application€of€òòBlockburgeróó,€theÏparticular€facts€giving€rise€to€Dentonððs€convictions€and€theÍcommon€purpose€served€by€the€two€statutes€lead€us€to€conclude€thatÏimposition€of€multiple€convictions€and€sentences€upon€DentonÏviolates€the€double€jeopardy€clause€of€our€state€constitution.€€ItÏis€unreasonable€to€assume€that€the€legislature€intended€that€aÏdefendant€who€commits€one€assault€on€a€single€victim€be€convictedÏof€both€aggravated€assault€and€attempted€homicide.€€ÌÌà àFurthermore,€the€legislature€has€provided€some€guidanceÏin€this€area:€€ð ð[w]hen€the€same€conduct€may€be€defined€under€twoÏ(2)€or€more€specific€statutes,€the€person€may€be€prosecuted€underÏòòeitheróó€statute€unless€one€(1)€specific€statute€precludesÏprosecution€under€another.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„109(b)Ï(1991)(emphasis€added).€€We€think€that€if€the€legislature€hadÏintended€dual€prosecution,€it€would€have€specifically€providedÏthat€persons€accused€of€conduct€defined€under€two€statutes€couldÏbe€prosecuted€under€ð ðboth,ðð€instead€of€ð ðeitherðð€statute.€€TheÏlegislatureððs€choice€of€terminology€is€indicative€of€its€intentÏthat€the€State€be€limited€to€a€single€conviction€underÍcircumstances€where€a€single€act€exposes€an€accused€to€prosecutionÏunder€more€than€one€statute.× ƒB ××  ×ÌÌà àBased€on€the€facts€before€us,€we€conclude€that€only€oneÏconviction€can€be€sustained.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€DentonððsÏconviction€and€sentence€for€aggravated€assault.€€The€convictionÍfor€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€is€reversed,€and€thatÏindictment€is€dismissed.ÌÌà@ àVÌÌà àIn€sum,€òòAnthonyóó€did€not€announce€a€new€rule€ofÏconstitutional€law.€€Therefore,€it€does€not€apply€retroactivelyÏand€has€no€application€to€the€circumstances€of€BrownððsÏconvictions.€€Because€the€remainder€of€Brownððs€issues€areÏprocedurally€barred€from€consideration€by€this€Court,€the€judgmentÏof€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€dismissing€his€petition€isÏaffirmed€in€all€respects.ÌÌà àArticle€I,€ðð€10€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution€barsÏDentonððs€conviction€for€possessing€a€weapon€intended€for€use€inÏthe€Ô% € Ôcommission€of€an€offense€because€in€this€case€this€offense€isÏa€lesser€included€offense€of€aggravated€assault.€€Further,€we€findÏthat€Dentonððs€conviction€for€attempted€voluntary€manslaughter€mustÏalso€be€reversed€because€under€the€facts€of€this€case€it€is€aÏviolation€of€Article€I,€ðð€10€to€convict€Denton€twice€for€a€singleÏattack€on€a€single€victim.€€The€indictments€setting€forth€theseÍrespective€offenses€are€dismissed.€€The€judgment€of€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€is€affirmed€in€part€for€reasons€other€than€thoseÏexpressed€in€the€intermediate€courtððs€opinion€and€reversed€inÏpart.ÌÓÓÌÌÌà àà àà àà àÏ__________________________________à àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.ÏBIRCH,€JR.,€Chief€JusticeÌÌÌÔ% €$ ÔCONCUR€IN€BROWN:€€Anderson,€Drowota,€Reid,€White,€JJ.ÌCONCUR€IN€DENTON:€Anderson,€Drowota,€Reid,€JJ.Ìà àà à€€€White,€J.,€n.p.