WPC! c-OVXyW^SSG3МR;6`v\fΣ+Q\m΂-G%΄~?vpCr-{;lv6oDH5'(W-вDoͽ}kE!i 4iU *ó?b\8<~A= .);JZ/9AJq'O{z7D(1"dM)-qcZ5@;R-j;l> x){!z1-lm{i Sȫ~fV p۲בeyf}:$͵i"v`DoU&I6Z{u # .q^ Lx#{ :,Cy+貟 >#/r@}LKI=[~e ;6\GV:\J{uJ3QOE^^~@sX,ZU >* 0n 0j 0 0:u  0 U>|U6 0#UNw %M(N^ w4  mU@6 0v 0DpUNE B\  `&Times New Roman' I concur in the majority decision to affirm the conviction in this casese8AOC, STATE OF TENNESSEE80AOC, STATE OF TENNESSEE .   <:Default ParaXXX<%% :Body Text In X      X 0> .Footer !>44 <DL!>:8Page Number  _)  ..    XgXXXXXgXXXXgX  _! !X!  XXgXXgXX XgXXXXgX$ !!$  R    XgXXX XgX(2_$  !  ..    XgXXXXXgXXXXgX  \  `&Times New Roman<6X9`(Courier New#|x($  ..     XEX XwXX XEHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX0-s ,-P U(nN Z(Times New Roman ((3$  !  ..    XgXXXXXgXXXXgX   4   0  (#$  0  ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular d  !  ..    XgXXXXXgXXXXgX  _  X     XX8gXXXdd8J-XXgX fJ-  0 0 ! !0< ! !0<!<!0!!0D!!0D!D!0!!0L!!J- fԀL!L!   # fJ-p#J- fXJ-INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @@%AT#J-X#ԀJACKSON 7 June4,2002Session  V XgXXJ-Ԁ#J-XXgX# XgXXJ-  b  #J-XXgX#XJ-STATEOFTENNESSEE v.RICHARDHALEAUSTIN#J-X#XgXXJ-   H   g @@  AppealfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  M CriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  3  @@ No.B58357C.Creed_McGinley_,Judge     Ӏ   @@*AY) ` dE<` A      No.W199900281SCDDTDDFiledSeptember16,_2002_Ԁ    p  AY) ` dE<U` A V # XF XXXgX## f X XFb#   J-. fXgXX.J- e  X#J-XgX#XgXX.J-=gXXXdd=AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,dissenting.# XF XXXgX#XgXX X XF 1  X Inalineofdissents,Ihavemaintainedthatthecomparativeproportionality M reviewprocesscurrentlyembracedbythisCourtfails.Itfailsbecauseitdoesnotoperate 3 toprotectdefendantsfromthearbitraryanddisproportionateimpositionofthedeath  penalty.See,e.g.,Statev.Godsey,60S.W.3d759,793(Tenn.2001)(Birch,J.,  concurringanddissenting);Statev.Bane,57S.W.3d411,431(Tenn.2001)(Birch,J.,  concurringanddissenting);Statev.Chalmers,28S.W.3d913,923(Tenn.2000)(Birch, { J.,concurringanddissenting);Statev.Keen,31S.W.3d196,234(Tenn.2000)(Birch,J., a dissenting).Thiscaseisnodifferent. G  -} ЀThepredominantprincipleunderlyingcomparativeproportionalityreviewisthat c itisunjusttoimposeadeathsentenceupononedefendantwhenotherdefendants, I convictedofthesamecrimeswithsimilarfacts,receivesentencesoflifeimprisonment  /  (withorwithoutparole).Godsey,60S.W.3dat793.Basedonthisprinciple,and !! pursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotated3913206(c)(1),thisCourtmustconducta "" comparativeproportionalityreviewofeverydeathsentenceforthepurposeof ##  determiningwhetherthedeathpenaltyisunacceptableinaparticularcasebecauseitis w$$ disproportionatetothepunishmentimposedonothersconvictedofthesamecrime. ]% % Statev.Henderson,24S.W.3d307,314(Tenn.2000)(citingStatev.Hall,8S.W.2d593, C&!& 604(Tenn.1999)). )'y"'  (_#( Intheory,thecomparativeproportionalityreviewprotocolseemsidealand (E$) workable;however,asIhaveoftenstated,albeitingentlerterms,itjustdoesnotwork. )+%* Threeflawsensuretheunreliabilityofthereviewprocess:(1)theproportionalitytestis *&+ sobroadthatnearlyeverysentenceispronouncedproportionate;(2)the poolofcases +&, usedforcomparisonisentirelytoosmall;and(3)thereviewprocessitselfismuchtoo ,'- subjective._Chalmers_,28S.W.3dat923(Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting).Ifthis s-(. Courtistoadequatelyprotectagainstthedisproportionateimpositionofthedeath  sentence,theseflawsmustbecorrected.Bane,57S.W.3dat431(Birch,J.,concurring  anddissenting). |  b  X 4 UntiltheissuesIhavecontinuallyraisedareaddressed,IholdthatthisCourt H cannotthoroughlyandadequatelyfulfillitsstatutorydutytoreviewdeathpenaltycases . ~ toensurethatadefendantsdeathsentenceisproportionate.#J-XXgXA #  d # fJ- # AXXdXXd` A XF X fXgXX X XF  0 4 0 4!4!  ! ! 0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0< ! !0<!<!0!!     D      L    @ __________________________________  !!  4    <   0  ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.