### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE
S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E v . J O H N C
. W A L K E R , III

Circuit Court

for PutnamCounty No. 02-0306

__________

____________________________

No. M2003- 01732-CCA -R3-C D - F iled Fe bruary 8, 2005

____________________________

OR DE R
This matter is befor e the Court on a motion t o rehe ar, pur suant to Rule 39 of the Tenne ssee Rules of A pp el l ate Proc edure . I n his moti on, the def endant c halleng es both the appli c a ti o n o f e n h a n c e me n t f a c to r s ab s e n t a ju r y f

in d in g , f o ll o w in g th e h o ld in g in B lakelyv. Washington; and the r ej ec t i o n of three mitigating fac tors. I nitially , we note that the latter is not cog n i z ab le in this procee ding; Te nnessee Rule of Appellate Procedur e 36(a ) states: “A rehe aring will not be gr anted to permit rearg ument of matters fu l l y arg ued.” In the instant case , the tr ia l c ou rt ’s re

je c tio n o f the mit ig a tin g fa c tor s in qu e sti on wa s f ull y lit ig a te d o n d ir e c t app e a l;
as such, our analy sis will be confine d to the applicability of the enhanc ement fac tors in lig h t of the Supreme Court’s holding in Blake ly

. Waiver
A nec essary

first step in our ana ly sis is t o addre ss the State’s ar g ument t h at t h e defenda nt waived any

Blakely challeng e for

failing to raise the issue e arlier . I am in ag ree ment with the op ini on of

Judg e Woo da ll, wh ic h s ta te s: As s uming that [the defe ndant] in t his case ha d arg ued in the trial c ourt, under Appre ndi, that no enhanc ement fac tor other than prior convictions could be
app lie d a bs e nt a jury fi nd in g, the t

ri a l c ou rt , a ndthi s Co urt ( prior to the U. S. Supreme Co urt’s opinion in Blake ly ) would have been oblig ated to re ject that is s u e u n d e r

G r ah a m[ v
. St a te ]. State v. Ricky

Gr over A aron, N o. M2002-02288-CCA-R3-CD. Ther efor e, bec ause pr evious prec edent require d our courts to reject the c ontention ultim ately adopted in B lakely , the defe ndant would have had no reason to cha lleng e it befor e that ca se wa s decide d. Thus, such challeng es ar e not waive d.O u r e a rlie r o p inio n w a s re n d e re d w itho u t re g a rd to B la k e ly. 1 App lic abi lit y o f Blak e ly
We next analy ze whether the enha nceme nt fac to rs we re w rong fully applied, in light of the holding in B lakely . The de fendant in the instant case wa s con v i cted of second- deg ree murder, a Class A felony , which car ries a Ra ng e I

penalty of betwe en fifte en and twe nty -five y ear s. As re q uired by

statute, the trial court beg an with the midpoint of the rang e, and inc rea sed the sentenc e base d upon the applicati o n o f two enhanc ement fa ctors: (10) the defe ndant possessed or e mploy ed a f irea rm, explosi ve devic e or othe r d eadly wea pon during the commission of the offe nse; and (17) the crime was c ommit t ed u n d er c ircumstance s under whic h the potential for bodily

injury to a victim was g reat.
Ba sed upon the trial c ourt’s finding that the enha nceme nt fac tors wer e applica ble, and that no mitig a tin g fa c tor s a pp lie d, the de fe nd a nt’ s se nte nc e wa s in c re a se d to tw e nty -f ive y e ars , the maxi mum se ntence within the rang e. On appea l, this Court uphe ld the application o f fac t or (1 0) a ndfu rthe r n ote d th a t th e “ tr ia l c ou rt ga ve a ‘g re a t de a l of

we ig ht’ ” to that f

a c tor in determining its sentence . This Court rejec ted the application o f fa ct o r (17) ; however , we f ound that the trial court “could have used enhanc ement fac tor (11),” which states that “t h e d ef endant had no h e s it a ti o n ab o u t c o mm itti n g a c r im e w h e n th e r is k

to h u man li f

e w a s h ig h

. ” T h u s , we up he ld the e nh a nc e d s e nte nc e of tw e nty -f ive y e ars
. 1
Th e app ro pria te ne ss o f the app lic a tio n o f f a c tor s ( 10 ) and (1 1) mus t no w b e re vie we d in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Blake ly . Blakely require s t h at en h ancement fa ctors be
e ith e r a dmi tte d b y

the de fe nd a nt o r f

ou ndby a jury de te rm inatio n b e y on d a reason abl e do ub t. Se e B lake ly

v. Was hin g ton , 5 42 U. S. _

__ , 1 24 S. Ct . 2 53 1 ( 20 04 ). B e c aus e ne ith e r f a c tor me e ts the re quirements of B lakely , both were improperly applied.
Conclusion
Be ca u s e both fa ctors we re a pplied in violation of Blake ly , the def endant’ s second- deg ree murder se ntence is reduce d from twenty -five y ear s to twenty y ear s, the presumptive minimum.

____________________________________ J OHN EV ERETT WILL I AMS, J UDGE