T he A t t o rney G eneral s eeks r eheari ng only as t o P art II I. C of t he m ajo ri t y op i ni o n and argues t h a t t he 1 T e n n e sse e C rim ina l S e n te n c ing R e fo rm A c t o f 1 9 8 9 (“R e fo rm A c t” ) v io la te s the S ixth A m e n d m e n t.



### IN THE S UP REME COURT OF TENNESS EE

AT NAS HVILLE H earda t K noxv ill e Ja nuary4, 200 5 S es sio n STATE OF TENNESS EE v . EDWI N GOMEZ an d J ONATHAN S. LONDONO App e al b y P e r m iss ion fro mth e Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als

Crim inal Cou rt for Davidson Coun ty No. 2001-A- 280 Cheryl Blackbu rn, Judge

No. M2002- 01209-SC-R11- CD - F iled May 18, 2005

ORDER DENYING P ETIT ION F OR REHEARING Petitions for r ehea

ring have be en filed by

Edwin Gomez, J onathan L ondono, the Attorney Ge ne ra l a ndRe po rt e r, a nda mic us c uria e , T e nn e sse e As so c iation of Cr imi na l D e fe ns e L a wy e rs . 1 The pe titioners primarily arg ue that the m aj o ri t y opinion rests upon a misunderstanding and mis app lic a tio n o f the Un ite d State s Sup re me Cou rt ’s de c isi on s in Jone s v. Un ite d St a te s, 52 6 U .S. 227 (1999), Appr endi v. New J erse y , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002), B lake ly v. Was hin g ton , 5 42 U. S. _ _, 12 4 S. Ct. 25 31 (2 00 4) , a nd Un ite d State s v . B oo ke r,
__ U. S. __, 125 S. Ct . 738 (2005).
Th e arg ume nts a dv a nc e d inthepe tit ion s to re he ar w e rec on sid e re d a ndre je c te d b y a ma jority of this Court in it s o rig inal opinion. W e re main convince d that Blakely must be rea d in light of Booke r. To do otherwise would not serve to “pre serve Six th Amendment substance .” B ooker, 125 S. Ct . at 752. I n Booke r, Jus tice Stevens e x plained:

I f the Guide lines as cur

rently written could be rea d as mere ly advisory provisions that r ecommende d, rathe r than require d, the selec tion of p ar t i cular sentenc es in response to differing se ts of fac ts, their use would not implicate the Six th Amendment. We have ne ver doubte d the authority of a judg e to exercise br oad discretion in i mposing a sentenc e withi n a statutory rang e. Indeed, e very one ag ree s that the constitutional issues presented by these c ases would ha ve been avoided entirely if Congr ess had omitt ed from the [Sentencing Reform Ac t] the provisions that make the G uidelines binding on district judge s; it is that circumstanc e that make s

### -2

-

t h e C o u rt ’s an s we r t o t h e s ec o n d q u es t i o n p re s en t ed p o s s i b l e. Fo r w h en a tr i al j u d ge exer c is e s h is d is c r e ti o n to s e le c t a s p e c if ic s e n te n c e w ith in a d e f

in e d rang e, the de fe nd a nt ha s no ri g ht to a jury de te rm inatio n of the fa c ts that the judge dee ms re le va nt.
I d. at 750 (c itations omi tted). The Court ha rmonized the Fe d er al S entenc ing G uidelines with the Six th A mendment by apply ing in B ooker a reme dy which cre ated a discretionary sentenc ing sc heme. I d. at 764. We are not persuade d that the di ffe renc es between the Reform Act and the post-B ooker Fe dera l Sentencing Guidelines ar e constitutionally signific ant. I f t he Six th Amendment countenances a

sentenc ing sc heme t

h at pe rmits judges to find f acts re levant to sentenc ing and aff ords judge s discretion to selec t a sentenc e anywher e within a statutory rang e, ev en i n t h e absenc e of e nh a nc ing fa c ts, we are un ableto c on c lud e that th e Sixth A me nd me nt f or bid s a se nte nc ing sc he me in which a s t at e l egis lature limits judicial discretion by desig nating the pre sumptive sentence that must be imposed when a judg e finds no enhanceme nt or mitigating fac tors. The pe titions for r ehea

ring are DENIED.
J ustice Ande rson and Justi ce B irch c ontinue to adher e to the position state d in the orig inal dissenting opinion, and on those g rounds, would g rant the pe titions to rehe ar.

FOR THECOURT:

_______________________________ F R A N K F

. D R O W O T A , III , CH IEF JUSTI CE

C o n cu rr i n g: Ja n i c e M

. H o l d e r

a n d W i l l i a mM

. B ark e r , JJ.
Di s s en t i n g: E

. R i l e y A n d e r s o n a n d A d o l p h o A

. B i r c h , Jr

. , JJ.