ÿWPC÷, … %Vj\ 0 (Æ Fî 4 w@< 4| b B-˜ 0ÂÅ ‡ U4– 0DÊ UN 0J\ 0T¦ fú 0Dü 0^@ Bž C» AOÕ Æ$ 0Xê 0KB D3 AMÀÆ  0DÓ D+ 0hB 0rª 0| 0†˜ 0 1u® 0D# 0dgU:Ë AO 0âT h„6 Rº "B&h0‚ v~²"U>0$U *n$U*˜$B)Â$DCë$ AO.%vÓ}% AQP+Æ¡+ 0Dg, D/«, BÚ,XMemo - Traditional  ' '  0 .   ($¡¡c:\wpwin60\template\memo\memo1.wpt èéPêPëPì«ðñDòDóÓ€ÿäzz!Ä3Ø'°°- ù-)Hairline dF>> 4_HeadingsHeadingsÔ€XzXXXÔÔ€ò¤òXXzÔÔ€XzXXXÔÔ€ò¤òXXzÔ3|xÿ0²ž]A ‹Arial Bold(2¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(@øÐ Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÔ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d÷ÿdÿÿÿd !C Ð  CÿÿLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(0"ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  ÒÒ  Ò( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÿÿdxd$%&Aýÿ<< Cÿÿ„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$••ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'ÈÈÈÈdxd26 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)(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular€ ?Cþÿ << Gÿÿ(Tf2p$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝѰÑѰÑÒ€°ÒÒÀ°Òà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€/X€XXXÔÔ€/ômúôX/X€ÔÐTABLE AH\Td\ôSourceUser Theta Index$\D,\\D$\ôo\T(\ô1.0 Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÝ  ÝÔ€<ÔÔ€<ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€<XÔÌÌò òMay€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€<ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó úÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€<ÔÔ€<ôÔòòState€v.€Kissingeróó,€922€S.W.2d€482€(Tenn.€1996)€does€not€support€the€majorityððs€decisionÏas€it€also€applied€the€particularly€vulnerable€enhancement€factor€in€the€sentencing€of€a€defendantÏfor€aggravated€sexual€battery,€an€offense€of€which€age€was€an€essential€element.€€òòIdóó.€at€487.Ì 8Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€<ÔÔ€<ôÔI€agree€with€the€majority€that€the€€ð ðlegislature€has€predicated€the€application€of€òòanyóóÏenhancement€factor€on€it€being€ððappropriate€for€the€offense.ðððð€€€However,€rather€than€focusing€onÏthe€circumstances€of€the€offense€which€establish€the€victimððs€vulnerability,€as€the€enhancementÏfactor€requires,€the€majorityððs€interpretation€of€the€enhancement€factor€requires€courts€to€focus€onÏthe€defendantððs€motivation€in€committing€the€offense€and€allows€application€of€the€enhancementÏfactor€only€if€the€victimððs€vulnerability€influenced€the€defendantððs€decision€to€commit€the€offense.€€€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€<ÔÔ€<ôÔThe€majority€dismisses€as€unfounded,€ð ðthe€dissentððs€fearðð€that€the€particularly€vulnerableÏenhancement€factor€may€never€be€used€where€the€defendant€uses€a€gun€and€says€that€the€use€of€aÏgun€or€other€deadly€weapon€is€a€separate€basis€for€enhancement€and€is€relevant€to€two€otherÏenhancement€factors.€€The€majorityððs€statement€reinforces€the€basis€on€which€I€disagree.€€While€theÏuse€of€a€gun€òòisóó€relevant€to€some€other€enhancement€factors,€it€is€not€relevant€to,€nor€should€it€beÏconsidered,€by€courts€applying€the€particularly€vulnerable€enhancement€factor.Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€;ÔÝ  ÝÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ € ÒÒ À Òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÔ€<ÔÔ€<ôÔI€disagree€with€the€majorityððs€assertion€that€consideration€of€the€circumstances€of€theÏvictim,€in€addition€to€the€victimððs€age,€is€not€proper€under€a€plain€language€application€of€the€statute.€ÏIt€is€the€specific€victimððs€circumstances€which€must€be€considered€to€determine€if€the€victim€isÏparticularly€vulnerable€because€of€age.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'h< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d>>>>7Border 1dd€ ?Cþÿ << GÿÿStyl{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€‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€;ÔÝ  Ý›Ñ , ÑÑ ` ÑÒ € ÒÒ ° ÒÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÔ€<ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€\XXdìXXdð7ÑØ ØÓ&€==XÐd&Óœ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€JACKSONÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)à àòòFOR€PUBLICATIONóóÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àà àà àà àAppellant„Appellee,à àà àà à)à àœFiled:€€May€12,€1997›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà àà àà àÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àœHARDEMAN›€CRIMINALà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCHAD€DOUGLAS€œPOOLE›,à àà à)à à€Hon.€Jon€Kerry€œBlackwood›à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€€€€ÏJudgeÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àAppellee„Appellant.à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€œ02S01›„9607„CC„00064à àÌœßR€15?A1-j|g0` Å `€€@ÿRß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)à à€€€€ÌÌÓÓà@ àòòò òDISSENTING€OPINIONó óóóÌÔ% €4 Ôà àThe€Legislature€has€determined€that€the€sentence€for€certain€criminalÏoffenses€may€be€enhanced€œif€›€œð ða€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularlyÏvulnerable€because€of€age€òòoróó€physical€òòoróó€mental€disability.€.€.€.ðð€›€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€40„35„114€(4)€(1990€œRepl.€&›€Supp.€1996)€(emphasis€added).€€€IgnoringÏthe€plain€language€of€the€statute,€the€majority€applies€a€judicial€gloss€and€rulesÏthat€the€enhancement€factor€does€not€apply€unless€the€State€shows€two€things:Í(1)€a€victim€of€the€offense€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age€òòandóóÏphysical€or€mental€disability,€òòandóó€(2)€the€vulnerability€of€the€victim€was€a€factorÏin€the€commission€of€the€offense.€€€€As€a€result,€the€majority€concludes€that€theÏfactor€was€erroneously€applied€by€the€trial€court€in€this€case.€€The€majorityððsÏinterpretation€is€contrary€to€œt›he€plain€language€and€express€purpose€of€theÏsentencing€statute€and€prior€decisions€of€this€Court.€€For€the€reasonsÏexplained€below,€it€is€my€view€that€the€trial€court€correctly€applied€theÏenhancement€factor€in€this€case.€€Therefore,€I€dissent€from€the€majorityððsÏdecision€and€would€reverse€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment€reducingÏthe€defendantððs€sentence.ÌÓÓà àà àÌÌà@ àò òòòSTATUTORY€INTERPRETATIONóóó óÌÌÓÓà àThe€most€basic€principle€of€statutory€construction€is€to€ascertain€andÏgive€effect€to€legislative€intent.€€òòOwens€v.€Stateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€Legislative€intent€is€to€be€ascertained€whenever€possible€from€theÏnatural€and€ordinary€meaning€of€the€language€used,€without€forced€or€subtleÏconstruction€that€would€òòlimitóó€or€extend€the€meaning€of€the€language.€€òòCarsonÍCreek€Vacation€Resorts,€Inc.€v.€State,€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2Ï(Tenn.€1993)€(emphasis€added).€€€If€the€legislative€intent€is€expressed€in€aÏmanner€devoid€of€contradiction€and€ambiguity,€there€is€no€room€forÏinterpretation€or€constructions,€and€courts€are€not€at€liberty€to€depart€from€theÏwords€of€the€statute.€€òòId.óó€€Where€the€language€contained€within€the€four€cornersÏof€a€statute€is€plain,€clear,€and€unambiguous,€the€duty€of€the€courts€is€simpleÏand€obvious,€ð ðto€say€sic€lex€scripta,€and€obey€it.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€quoting€òòMiller€v.ÏœChildress›óó,€21€Tenn.€(2€Hum.)€319,€321„22€(1841).ÌÌà àThe€language€of€the€enhancement€factor€at€issue€in€this€case€is€plain,Ïclear,€and€unambiguous.€€The€enhancement€factor€may€be€applied€when€theÏvictim€is€ð ðparticularly€vulnerable€because€of€age€ò òoró ó€physical€ò òoró ó€mentalÏdisability.ðð€€(Emphasis€added.)€€The€statute€is€clearly€written€in€the€disjunctiveÏand€lists€three€separate€and€independent€factors€which€may€support€a€findingÏof€particular€vulnerability.€€Therefore,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€apply€theÏstraightforward€language€of€the€statute.̛̜à àCiting€òòState€v.€Adamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€31€(Tenn.€1993),€and€òòState€v.€Butleróó,Ï900€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€App.€1994)(no€perm.€œapp›.€filed),€the€majorityÏignores€its€duty,€and€in€my€opinion€fails€to€follow€the€plain€language€of€theÏstatute.€The€majorityððs€reliance€upon€òòAdamsóó€as€support€for€its€interpretation€isÏmisplaced.€€Contrary€to€the€majorityððs€analysis,€òòAdamsóó€did€not€announce€aÏprinciple€which€limited€the€use€of€this€enhancement€factor.€€Indeed,€in€òòAdamsóóÏwe€refused€to€limit€its€application€and€recognized€that€particular€vulnerabilityÏcould€be€established€by€any€one€of€three€separate€and€independent€factors€„„Ïage€or€physical,€or€mental€disability.€ÌÌà àFor€example,€in€òòAdamsóó€the€trial€court€had€applied€the€particularlyÏvulnerable€€factor€to€enhance€the€defendantððs€sentence€for€aggravated€rape.€ÏThe€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€held€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€appliedÏthat€factor€because€the€age€of€the€child€was€an€essential€element€of€theÏoffense€of€which€the€defendant€had€been€convicted€„„€aggravated€rape.€€òòSeeóóÏòòAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€33;€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ40„35„114(1990ÏRepl.)(enhancement›€factors€may€not€be€applied€if€they€are€ð ðthemselvesÍessential€elements€of€the€offense.ðð)ÌÌà àThe€State€sought€and€obtained€permission€to€appeal.€€In€this€Court,€theÏdefendant€argued€that€the€particularly€vulnerable€factor€was€automaticallyÏunavailable€to€enhance€a€sentence€when€age€was€an€essential€element€of€theÏunderlying€conviction€offense.€€We€rejected€the€defendantððs€argument€andÏinstead€stated€that€the€particularly€vulnerable€factorÌÌÓÓà8 àcan€be€used€in€an€aggravated€rape€case€if€the€circumstancesÏshow€that€the€victim,€because€of€his€age€or€physical€or€mentalÏcondition,€was€in€fact€ððparticularly€vulnerable,ðð€i.e.,€incapable€ofÏresisting,€summoning€help,€or€testifying€against€the€perpetrator.€€ÌÌòòÓÓÌAdamsóó,€864€S.W.2d€at€35.€€We€instructed€that€the€burden€of€proving€theÏlimitations€rendering€the€victim€particularly€vulnerable€lies€with€the€State€andÏwe€cautioned€that€appropriate€application€of€the€enhancement€factor€turns€onÏthe€specific€facts€of€each€case.€€Therefore,€in€òòAdamsóó,€we€held€that€when€age€isÏan€essential€element€of€the€underlying€conviction€offense,€the€particularlyÍvulnerable€enhancement€factor€is€not€appropriate€òòunlessóó€it€is€also€supportedÏby€proof€of€mental€or€physical€disability.œ× ƒ6 ××  ×›ÌÌà àWhile€òòAdamsóó€was€not€expressly€limited€to€cases€wherein€the€defendantÏhad€been€convicted€of€an€offense€for€which€age€was€an€essential€element,€it€isÏaxiomatic€that€principles€of€law€are€circumscribed€by€the€facts€of€the€case€inÏwhich€they€are€announced.€€Therefore,€in€my€view,€the€principle€announced€inÏòòAdamsóó€should€be€limited,€as€the€State€argues,€to€cases€wherein€age€is€anÏessential€element€of€the€conviction€offense.ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€misapplying€òòAdamsóó,€the€majority€decision€erroneouslyÏholds€that€the€enhancement€factor€does€not€apply,€even€though€the€StateÏproves€that€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable,€unless€the€State€alsoÏestablishes€that€the€victimððs€vulnerability€was€a€factor€in€the€commission€of€theÏoffense.€€Slip€Op.€at€8.€€As€authority€to€support€this€proposition,€the€majority€citeÍòòState€v.€Butleróó,€900€S.W.2d€305€(Tenn.€œCrim›.€App.€1994)€(no€perm.€œapp›.€filed).€ÏConspicuously€absent€from€the€majority€decision€is€a€citation€to€the€languageÏof€the€enhancement€factor€or€any€other€authority.€€Moreover,€an€examination€ofÏòòButleróó€reveals€that€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€adopted€this€suspectÏproposition€without€citing€òòanyóó€authority,€statutory€or€otherwise.ÌÌà àRequiring€the€State€to€prove€that€the€victimððs€vulnerability€was€a€factor€inÏthe€commission€of€the€offense€is€not€only€contrary€to€the€plain€languageœ× ƒ7 ××  ×›€of€theÏstatute,€but€it€also€defeats€the€express€purpose€of€the€sentencing€statute€whichÏis€ð ðto€assure€fair€and€consistent€treatment€of€all€defendants€by€eliminatingÏunjustified€disparity€in€sentencing€and€providing€a€fair€sense€of€predictability€ofÏthe€criminal€law€and€its€sanctions.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€40„35„102(2)€(1990ÏRepl.€&€Supp.€œ1996).€€No€doubt,€inconsistent€and€unpredictable€sentences€willÍfollow€this€decision€as€the€bench€and€bar€struggle€to€understand€and€apply€theÏmajorityððs€version€of€the€particularly€vulnerable€enhancement€factor.€€ForÏexample,€applying€the€majority€decision€in€which€it€held€that€ð ðit€is€unlikely€thatÏany€victim€could€have€resisted€the€crime,€considering€the€manner€in€which€itÏwas€committed,ðð€it€is€difficult€to€conceive€of€a€scenario€in€which€the€particularlyÏvulnerable€enhancement€factor€would€apply€when€a€gun€is€used€in€theÏaccomplishment€of€a€criminal€offense.€€Slip€Op.€at€9.× ƒ8 ××  ×€€This›€is€only€oneÏexample€of€the€peculiar€outcomes€likely€to€follow€the€majorityððs€decision.ÌÌà àIn€my€view,€it€is€the€duty€of€this€Court€to€apply€the€particularly€vulnerableÏenhancement€factor€in€accordance€with€the€straightforward€language€of€theÏstatute.€€In€this€case,€the€plain€language€of€the€statute€fully€supports€applicationÏof€the€enhancement€factor.€€The€victim€in€this€case€was€a€œseventy›€year€oldÍwoman,€who€lived€alone€and€ran€a€small€grocery€store.€€It€was€commonlyÏknown€in€the€community€that€she€carried€large€sums€of€money€on€her€person.€ÏThere€is€nothing€to€indicate€that€she€had€any€type€of€home€security€system€orÏguard€dog.€€The€plain€language€of€the€particularly€vulnerable€enhancementÏfactor€evidences€the€General€Assemblyððs€recognition€that€the€age€of€a€personÏdirectly€correlates€to€a€personððs€vulnerability.€€In€my€view,€considering€the€ageÏœof€the€victim€and›€œthe€circumstances›€of€the€œvictim,× ƒ9 ××  ×›€the€trial€court€appropriatelyÏfound€that€the€victim€was€particularly€vulnerable€because€of€age.€€€I€realize€it€isÏpossible€to€imagine€circumstances€in€which€application€of€this€enhancementÏfactor€would€be€inappropriate€even€if€the€victim€is€a€œseventy›€year€old€woman.€ÏFor€example,€if€the€victim€in€this€case€had€greeted€her€assailants€with€a€loadedÏshotgun,€the€State€would€have€been€hard€pressed€to€prove€that€she€wasÏparticularly€vulnerable.€€However,€in€my€view,€it€is€the€age€and€circumstancesÏof€the€victim€which€are€relevant€to€determining€the€applicability€of€thisÍenhancement€factor,€not€the€motivation€of€the€defendant€who€commits€theÏoffense.ÌÌà àI€respectfully€dissent€from€the€majorityððs€decision€and€would€reverse€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment€reducing€the€defendantððs€sentence€andÏaffirm€the€trial€courtððs€application€of€the€particularly€vulnerable€enhancementÏfactor.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àœà àà à›à àà à______________________________Ìœà àà à›à àà àà àà àFRANK€F.€DROWOTA€III,Ìà àà àà àà àœà àà àJUSTICE›ÌÓÓÌÌÌ