### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON

STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. RO BER T LEO NA RD MOS LEY

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Henry County No. 13474 C. Cr eed Mc Ginley, Judge

No. W2004-00228-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled April 19, 2005

D AVI D G. H AYES , J udg e, dissenting , with reg ard to sente ncing modification.

The majority conclude s that modification of the defe ndant’s sente nce is re quired in lig ht of Blakely v. W

ashington , 5 42 U. S. _

_, 12 4 S. Ct. 25 31 (2 00 4) . I mus t r e sp e c tf

ull y dis se nt.

Any sentenc ing challeng e available to the defe ndant under Bl ak e ly is n ow wa ive d b e c a us e the def endant did not object at trial to what he now contends is a c onstitut ionally invalid sentencing scheme

. See Tenn. R. App. P. 36(a) . Our rule s of appellate procedure provide that an is sue may not be ra ised for the first time on appea l. Tenn. R. A pp. P. 36( a). I see no valid rea son to carve out an Ap pre nd i/B lake ly exception to this e stablished rule. I n United States v. Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 631- 34, 122 S. Ct . 1781, 1785-87 (2002)
, the Supreme Court he ld, a fter its de cision in Apprendi , that the defe ndant’s cla im of rig ht to a trial and finding by a jury on a fact used to enha nce the defe ndant’s
sentenc e wa s forfe ited beca use i t was not raise d at trial. Simil arly , I find the Supreme Court’ s ruling in Cotton applicable to the revie w of Bl ak e ly claims raise d on appea l in this State.

Review and modification of t he defenda nt’s sentenc e for the first time on appea l not only has the ef fe ct o f re m o ving the trial court a s the primary sentenc ing c ourt, it also denies the State the opportunity

to be hea rd in the sentenc ing de cision. Be cause the i ssue i s waived, it is revie wable on appea l only

under the discretionary

authority of plain er

ror. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(b).

An appe llate court is permitted to corre ct plain er ror, or in this case Blakely err or, only when the error is “of such a gre at m ag nitude that it probably chang ed the outcome of the trial.” State v. Adkisson
, 899 S.W .2d 626, 642 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Clearly
, this wa s the import of t he Supreme Court’s re cent holding in U. S. v. Booker , 543 U. S. _____, 125 S. C t. 738, 769 (2005),

w h e r e i n i to p i n e d t h a tn o t“ e v e r y [ Blakely /Booker ] ap p ea l wi l l l ea d t o a n ew s en t en ci n g h ea ri n g. That is beca

use we expect revie wing courts to apply ordinary prudential doctrines, determining, for example, whether

the issue was r aised be low and whe ther it fails the ‘pla in-err or’ test.”-2-

The re cord ove rwhe lmingly supports application of e nhancing fac tor (10), use of a f irea rm during the commission of the offe nse. I ndeed, on a ppeal, the de fenda nt does not contest the fa ct that he used a firea

rm during the attempted second deg ree murder of the victim. I find that under pla inerr or re view had a jury hear d the proof with reg ard to factor ( 10), its verdict would c lear ly have be en the same. Mor eover , I

conclude that the def

endant’ s use of the w eapon, c oupled with his drug and

a lc oh ol i nd uc e d s ta te a t the tim e of its us e a nd the ma nn e r in w hic h th e we apo n w a s u se d, pe rm its enhanc ement of his se ntence for attempted second deg ree murder by two y ear s and enha nceme nt of his ag g ravated assault sente nce by one y ear

.

Th e m a j o r i t y r e j e c t s e n h a n c e m e n t f

a c t o r ( 1 0 )
, n o t b e c a u s e i t d o e s n o t e xi s t , b u t be c a us e it vio la te s Bl ak e ly . As noted above , the Booke r C o u r to b s e r v e d t h a t t h i s s h o u l d n o t e n d t h e i n q u i r y, howeve r, as the revie wing court is e x pecte d to de termine whether the sentenc e fa ils the “plain-er ror” test. The re cord de monstrates that the de fenda nt has failed to e stablish prejudice in orde r to satisfy the “af fec ting substantial rights” require ment of the “plain-e rror ” test, Rule 52(b). See Cotton , 535 U. S. a t 17 86 , 1 22 S. Ct . at 6 33 (a ff ir min g e nh a nc e me nt o f the de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e fo llo wi ng pla in

err or ana ly sis notwiths tandi n g p resence of Apprendi err or). F or these r easons, I would aff

irm the

se nte nc e s a s impo se d b y

the tr ia l c ou rt

.

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