WPCO |q|j(#wqZvh(v4?;i.!;{,.iYq`t%qx2'ɳ.S/,OQ䈄(07M d F`ٙB[uF_m(lG/Q 47h+],Eoq %$Z82]cgt!2Z @ahR\ߐ-p!"rwt(Q)Hro wE7>?Qr+nįՌhZ^/vYQ!"6iՊ9 3/v8͚*'A]W<ފ!տ@]PÖH{UD~~ɢKڗTK-Q5}[,%\d N +! 0! 0" 0E# 0# 0$ 0|% 0/& 0& 0' 0$( 0( 0T) 0) 0* 0q+b!, 0), 0, 0w- 0. 0. 0?/ 0/ 0{0 091 0>1 052 0-3 04 04 05 06 07 0Q8 02#9 0U9 0:Q: 0Y: 0_: 0 C; 0M< 0= B*? D/? 0.@ D/4B 0cB 061C 0gC 0:oD 0^D 0E 0<E 1e.FU6F BFU>F 0$G D5G D-G 0K*HU*uH ASHH 0I 0D\J AJ 1uKK 72K 0cKUL?\N\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0v<1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularEb0:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU  R`$      4  )  _IalsonotethatinarecentstudyonthecostsandtheconsequencesofthedeathpenaltyconductedbytheState  Comptroller,oneoftheconclusionswasthatprosecutorsacrossthestateareinconsistentintheirpursuitofthedeath t penalty,afactthatalsocontributestoarbitrarinessintheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.SeeJohnG.Morgan, 8 ComptrolleroftheTreasury,TennesseesDeathPenalty:CostsandConsequences13(July2004),availableat L www.comptroller.state.tn.us/orea/reports.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   1 R`$      5  )  _AsnotedbytheCourtofCriminalAppealsinits_unredacted_Ԁopinion,theStatealsosoughtthedeathpenalty  againstPhillips,makingitaprimecaseforcomparison,evenunderthestandardsofBland.Statev.GregoryRobinson, t No.W200101299CCAR3DDatpp.5253(Tenn._Crim_.App.atJackson,Aug.13,2003).  R`$      1  )  _Ihaveurgedadoptingaprotocolinwhicheachcasewouldbecomparedtofactuallysimilarcasesinwhich  eitheralifesentenceorcapitalpunishmentwasimposedtodeterminewhetherthecaseismoreconsistentwith life t casesor deathcases.SeeStatev._McKinney_,74S.W.3dat321(Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting).Thecurrent 8 protocolallowsafindingproportionalityifthecaseissimilartoexistingdeathpenaltycases.Inotherwords,acaseis  disproportionateonlyifthecaseunderreview isplainlylackingincircumstancesconsistentwiththoseinsimilarcases t inwhichthedeathpenaltyhasbeenimposed.Bland,958S.W.2dat665(emphasisadded). 5 R`$      2  )  _Inmyview,excludingfromcomparisonthatgroupofcasesinwhichtheStatedidnotseekthedeathpenalty,  orinwhichnocapitalsentencinghearingwasheld,frustratesanymeaningfulcomparisonforproportionalitypurposes. t SeeBland,958S.W.2dat679(Birch,J.,dissenting).Thiscase,inparticular,isaprimeexampleofthearbitrarinessof 8 thisprotocol. 8 R`$      3  )  _AsIstatedinmyconcurring/dissentingopinioninStatev._Godsey_, [_t]he_Ԁscopeoftheanalysisemployedby  themajorityappearstoberatheramorphousandundefined!expanding,contracting,andshiftingastheanalysismoves t fromcasetocase.60S.W.3d759,797(Tenn.2001)(Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting).*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  - -(55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7J(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dI)1dxd<:zTop of For7L(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  I)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      (|G2`$ !.8]dXXd8         0  )2 0CommentB  "#$%&'() 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New d\  `&Times New Roman(|3IT$ !.8]dXXd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %2A`Arial^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IT$ !.8]dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)bi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0    R`$      6  )  _ThedispositionofJarvis_Shipp_scaseisunknown,althoughthereisevidenceintherecordthathewas  testifyingagainstthisdefendantinthehopeofreceivingafavorablepleabargain,presumablyforsomethingmore t favorablethanthedeathpenalty.SeeMajorityOpinion,slipop.at1920. 5 R`$      7  )  _See,e.g.,Statev.Burns,979S.W.2d276,285(Tenn.1998);Statev._Cauthern_,967S.W.2d726,741(Tenn.  1998). !.8]dd8     _   ]8yXXdd8@ KP]INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#]KP #Ԉ &   June2,2004Session L XyX] #]XXy#STATEOFTENNESSEEv.GREGORYROBINSONXyX]  J @@ AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  J CriminalCourtforShelbyCounty  6 @@No.971317980JamesC.Beasley,Jr.,Judge#]XXyX#XyX]  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200101299SCR11DDFiledSeptember28,2004#]XXy#XyX]   AV) ` dE<h` A i   @@*  #]Xy#XyX.]9#]XXyh#  XyX.]_Adolpho_ԀA.Birch,Jr.,J.,concurringanddissenting.  P   IconcurintheconclusionofthemajoritythatRobinsonsconvictionsshouldbeaffirmed. (x Astothesentenceofdeath,however,Icontinuetoadheretomyviews,previouslyexpressedina d longlineofdissents,thatthecomparativeproportionalityreviewprotocolcurrentlyembracedbythe P majorityisinadequatetoshielddefendantsfromthearbitraryanddisproportionateimpositionofthe < deathpenalty.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913206(c)(1)(D)(1995Supp.).Ihaverepeatedly ( expressedmydispleasurewiththecurrentprotocolsincethetimeofitsadoptioninStatev.Bland,  958S.W.2d651(Tenn.1997).SeeStatev.Davis,___S.W.3d___,___(Tenn.2004)(Birch,J.,  concurringanddissenting);Statev.Berry,___S.W.3d___,___(Tenn.2004)(Birch,J.,concurring  anddissenting);Statev._Holton_,126S.W.3d845,872(Tenn.2004)(Birch,J.,concurringand  dissenting);Statev.Davidson,121S.W.3d600,62936(Tenn.2003)(Birch,J.,dissenting);State t v.Carter,114S.W.3d895,91011(Tenn.2003)(Birch,J.,dissenting);Statev.Reid,91S.W.3d ` 247,28889(Tenn.2002)(Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting);Statev.Austin,87S.W.3d447, L  46768(Tenn.2002)(Birch,J.,dissenting);Statev.Stevens,78S.W.3d817,852(Tenn.2002) 8!  (Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting);Statev._McKinney_,74S.W.3d291,32022(Tenn.2002) $"t! (Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting);Statev.Bane,57S.W.3d411,43132(Tenn.2001)(Birch, #`" J.,concurringanddissenting);Statev.Stout,46S.W.3d689,720(Tenn.2001)(Birch,J.,concurring #L# anddissenting);Terryv.State,46S.W.3d147,167(Tenn.2001)(Birch,J.,dissenting);Statev. $8 $ Sims,45S.W.3d1,2324(Tenn.2001)(Birch,J.,concurringanddissenting);Statev.Keen,31 %$!% S.W.3d196,23334(Tenn.2000)(Birch,J.,dissenting).Aspreviouslydiscussed,Ibelievethatthe &"& threebasicproblemswiththecurrentproportionalityanalysisarethat:(1)theproportionalitytest '"' is_overbroad_,_ #  1      _Ԁ(2)thepoolofcasesusedforcomparisonisinadequate, #  2      ׀and(3)reviewistoo (#( _subjective.x #  3      ׀Ihavepreviouslydiscussed,indepth,myperceptionthattheseflawsunderminethe  reliabilityofthecurrentproportionalityprotocol.SeeStatev.Godsey,60S.W.3dat793800(Birch,  J.,concurringanddissenting).Icontinuetoadheretomyviewthatthecurrentcomparative  proportionalityprotocoliswoefullyinadequatetoprotectdefendantsfromthearbitraryor t disproportionateimpositionofthedeathpenalty.  #  4      ׀ `   Butbeyondtheforegoing,whichaddressesproportionalityreviewingeneral,thenumberof 8  participantsinthisoffenseandthewidedisparityinthesentencesimposedinthiscaseinviteayet $ t morespecificscrutiny.Ofthefourothersprosecutedforthisoffense,onlyRobinsonreceivedthe  ` deathpenalty.PrentissPhillipswasconvictedoffirstdegreemurderandespeciallyaggravated  L  kidnappingandreceivedsentencesoflifewithoutparoleforthemurder,plustwentyfiveyears,  8  respectively.( #  5      ׀SeeStatev.Phillps,76S.W.3d1(Tenn.Crim.App.2001),perm.app.denied(Tenn. $  2001).AntonioJacksonwasconvictedoffacilitationoffirstdegreemurderandespecially   aggravatedkidnappingandreceivedsentencesoftwentyfiveyearsoneachofthoseoffenses,tobe   servedconsecutively.SeeStatev.Jackson,52S.W.3d661(Tenn.Crim.App.2001),perm.app.   denied(Tenn.2001).KevinWilkinsconvictionforfirstdegreemurder(andlifewithoutparole   sentence)wasreversedonappealforinsufficientevidence,leavinghimwithasingleconvictionfor p especiallyaggravatedkidnapping,althoughitisevidentfromthetestimonyinthisrecordthathewas \  thepersonwhoactuallyfiredthefatalshotsintoVernonGreensbody.SeeStatev.KevinWilkins, H No.W199901462CCAMR3CD(Tenn.Crim.App.atJackson,Aug.18,2000),perm.app.denied  (Tenn.2001).e #  6      ׀     Ofcourse,adeathsentenceforonedefendantisnotrenderedarbitrary,excessiveor t disproportionatemerelybecauseanotherdefendantinthesamecasehasreceivedasentencelessthan ` death.f #  7      ׀Buthere,thearbitrarynatureofthesentencingprocessbecomesstrikinglymanifest.Thus, L  IamconstrainedtowholeheartedlyagreewiththeconclusionreachedbytheCourtofCriminal 8  Appeals!thatnorationalbasisexiststodistinguishRobinsonssentenceofdeathfromthelesser $ t sentencesimposedupontheotherdefendants.Accordingly,IdeemRobinsonssentencetobe  ` arbitrary,excessive,anddisproportionate.  L    Inlightoftheforegoing,Irespectfullydissentfromthatportionofthemajorityopinionthat $  affirmstheimpositionofthedeathpenaltyuponGregoryRobinsonandconcurintheaffirmanceof   hisconvictions.      `       `     h     ___________________________________ \    `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR. H