### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs A ugus t 18 , 200 4 STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. STA CY MC KINLE Y T AY LOR

alias RO NA LD LEE T AY LOR Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Sulli van Coun ty Nos. S47,106 and S47, 112 Phyllis H. Miller, Judge

No. E2003-02458-CC A-R3- CD - F iled Dece m ber 29, 2004
Hay es, Da vid G., J udg e, dissenting , in part, with reg ard to sente ncing modification. Th e ma jority c on c lud e s th a t mo dif ic a tio n o f t

he de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e s f or a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult and thef t are require d in light of Blakely v. W ashington , 542 U.S.___, 124 S. C t. 2531 (2004)

. For those rea sons expressed in S ta t e v . R i ck y Grover Aaron , N o . M 2 0 02 -0 22 88 -C CA -R 3- CD (Tenn. Crim. App. at Nashville, Dec . 13, 2004) (Hay es, J., di ssenting) , I find that any

sentenc ing challeng e available to the def endant unde r Bl ake ly is now waived be cause th e d ef endant did not object at tria l or on appe al to what the majority now conc ludes is a constitutionallyinfirm sentenc ing scheme

. Tenn. R. A pp. P. 36( a). After revie w of the rec ord, I do not f ind that an ys en t encing modification is require d for the defe ndant’s conviction for ag g ravated assault. I ag ree , howeve r, that sentenc ing modific ation is require d for the de fendant’s sentenc e for theft, in view of

the misapplication of sentenc ing e nhance rs which a re not supporte d by

the re cord. The majority

opines that t he sente nces violate Bl ake ly a nd , ina “ ha rm le ss e rr or ” a na ly sis , further conclude s that any sentenc ing err ors are harmless. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a) . Notwithstanding their conc lusion that the error does not aff

irmatively

appea r t o h av e af

fec ted the sente ncing determina t i o n , the majority , nonetheless, modifies the se ntence s. Thus, althoug h this court is an err or-c orre cting court, the ma jority implicitl y reje cts revie w of any err or stemming from a Bl ake ly vio la tio n. F ir st, I fi ndthat th e e rr or is n ot r e vie wa

ble un de r h arm le ss e rr or

a na ly sis . T he ma

jority cites as relianc e for

harmless e rror

revie w, Neder v. U

nited States , 527 U.S. 1, 19 , 119 S. Ct . 1827, 1839 (1990). How ever , the er ror in Neder

was objected to at trial, thus mandating harmless e rror revie w on appea l. Id

. at 1832. Second, I find this court has the authority to review alleg ed Bl ake ly err ors under

the discre tionary

authority of plain er

ror. Te nn. R. Crim. P . 52(b).

“ Pla in- e rr or

re vie w d if

fe rs fr om ha

rm le ss- e rr or

re vie w i n tw o impo rt a nt r e sp e c ts. F ir st, in plain-er ror r eview, the defe ndant bea rs the burde n of pers u as i o n wi th respec t to prejudice or the e ff e c t onsu bs ta nti a l r ig hts . In h arm le ss e rr or re vie w, the g ov e rn me nt h a s th e bu rd e n. Se c on d, wh ile bo th p la in- e rr or

a ndha rm le ss- e rr or

re vie w c on sid e r w he the r a de fe nd a nt’ s rig hts we resu bs ta nti a lly-2-

aff ecte d, plain-er

ror r eview ha s the additional requir ement that an appe llate court then must decide wh e the r t o e xer c ise its dis c re tio n to no tic e a fo rf e ite d e rr or . T hat di sc re tio n may be e xer c ise d o nly if the er ror a lso ‘seriouslyaff

ects the f airne ss, integrity

or public re putation of judicial proce eding s.’” United States v. Monroe , 35 3 F .3 d 13 46 (1 1 Cir

. 20 03 ) (i nte rn a l c ite s omi tte d)

. Th e a sse rt e d p la in th e rr or mus t ha ve be e n o f s uc h a g re a t ma g nitud e that it

pr ob ably c ha ng e d th e ou tc ome of

the tr ia l. State v. Adk isson , 899 S.W .2d 626, 642 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994)

. The major

it y conclude s, and I

ag ree , that the trial court’s misapplication of sentenc ing f actor s require s modification of the defe ndant’s sentenc e for theft. Acc ording ly , I join in modification of thi s se nte nc e to r e fl e c t a

se nte nc e of

thr e e y e ars . Wit h respe ct t o t h e defe ndant’s convic tion for ag g ravated assault, I find that the re cord overw helmingly

supports application of e nhance ment fac tors (2) and (11) a n d the enhanceme nt fa c tor of Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d sec tio n 39- 13 -1 02 (d )( 1) . Be c aus e thede fe nd a nt h a s f a ile d to establish prejudice , the provisi ons of R ule 52(b), which re quire that a substantial rig ht be af

fec ted, h a v e n o tb e e n m e t
. I f

i n d n o m o d i f

i c a t i o n i s n e c e s s ar y. For these re asons, I

would aff

irm the defe ndant’s maximum sentenc e o f s i x y ear s for a g g ra vate d a ssa

ult

.

____________________________________ Da v i d G. Ha y es , J u d ge