### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Jun e 7, 200 5 ST A TE OF TE N N ES SE E v . M A R IC O F IN N IE Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for Shelby Coun ty No. 00-10541-47, 00- 10550-56 John P. Colt on, Jr., Judge

No. W2004-02166-C CA-R 3-CD - F iled Jul y 8, 2005

A Sh e lb y Co u n ty Cr im in a l Co u rt Ju r y c o n v ic te d th e d e f

e n d a n t, M a r ic o F inn ie , o f f o u r counts of ag g ravated ra

pe, a Class A felony , seven counts of ag g ravated robbe ry , a Class B f elony , and thre e counts of fa cilitation of ag g ravated ra pe, a Class B felony , and the trial court sente nced him to eig ht y ear s for e ach r obbery

conviction, twenty

y ear s for e ach r ape c onviction, and eight y ea rs for each fac ilitation of ag g ravated ra pe conviction. The trial court orde red f our of the r obbery

convictions to be serve d concur

rently with eac h other but consec utively to the rema ining r obbery

convictions and to the convictions for r ape a nd fac ilitatio n o f ra p e. I t then order ed the r emaining sentenc es for robber y , rape , and fa cil i t at i o n of ra pe to be se rved c onsecutively for a n eff ective se ntence of 128 y ear s in the De p ar tment of Correc tion. The defe ndant appe als, claiming the trial cour t’s order imp os ing c on se c uti ve se nte nc ingvio la te s h is r ig ht t o tr ia l by jur y . We a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt

. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nts of

the Cr im inal Cou rt A ff irm ed
J OS EP H M. T I PTON , J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which D AVI D G. H AYES and T HOMAS T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined. Charles E. Waldman, Memphis, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellant, Maric o Finnie.
Pa ul G . Summe rs , A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l and

Re po rt e r; Mark A. F ulk s, As sis tant A tto rn e y Ge ne ra l; Wi ll ia m L

. G ib b o n s , D is tr ic t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l; a n d Pa

u l T h o ma s H o o v e r , Jr

. , a n d W. S tephen Crossnoe, Assistant District Attorney s Gene ral, for the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
. OP IN ION
Th is c a se re la te s to the de fe nd a nt’ s sp re e of ra pin g a nd ro bb inglin g e ri e mod e ls w ithhis acc omplice, Anthony

Allen. The r ecor d ref

lects that on Dec ember 14, 1999, the defe ndant and Allen we nt t o B ra

nd i’ s Fas hi ons w he re the y ini tia lly po se d a s c us tom e rs and

the n r ob be d th e lin g e ri e mod e ls a nd oth e r e mpl oy e e s o f t

he ir po ssessi ons and

mon e y a t g un po int . T he y

too k th e vic tim s’ driver’ s licenses a

nd told them that they would trac k them down and kill them if any body repor ted t h e cr i m e to p o l i ce
. T h e de fe n d an tan d Al l en t h en rap edt wo o f t h e l i n ger i e m o d el s
. Be fo re l ea v i n g,-2-

the def endant a nd Allen pre ache d to the victims about leading immoral lives and attending churc h a nd fo rc e d th e vic tim s to sin g Chr istma s c a ro ls.
On De c e mbe r 20 , 19 99 , the de fe nd a nt a nd Al le n we nt to Sou the rn B e lle s, ano the r l ing e ri e bu sin e ss. As so on a s an em plo y e e of Sou the rn B e lle s ope ne d the do or , Mr. Al le n pla c e d a g un to her he ad and or dere d all of the employ ees to undr ess and g et on the floor. The de fenda nt and Allen the n r ob be d th e vic tim s o f t he ir po sse ssi on s and mon e y a nd too k the ir dr ive r’ s li c e ns e s and ide nti ty c a rd s, te lli ng the vic tim s the y wo uld kil l the m if the y c a lle d the po lic e
. Th e y a lso ra pe d th e vic tim s, pr e a c he d to the m a

bo ut t he ir lif e sty le s, a nd fo rc e d th e m to sin g Chr istma s c a ro ls unti l th e y le ft

. On J anuar

y 1 4 , 2000, the def

endant a nd Allen went to Club Flaming o, an exotic dancing club. They asked two of the exotic dancer s to perfor m at a bac helor pa

rty , and the da

ncer s ag ree d. As the danc ers lef

t the club, the defendant a nd Allen abduc ted them and dr ove to the Discove ry I nn wher e they

rente d a room. The defe ndant and Allen then rape d the victims, preac hed to them about the ir lif e sty le s, a nd le ft

. Ba sed on this evidence , the jury convicted the defe ndant, and the tri al court c onducted a sentenc ing hear ing. At the sentenc ing hear ing, the trial court found the defe ndant was a dang erous o ff en d er t o j u s t i fy i t s i mp o s i t i o n o f c o n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g. On ap p ea l, the defe ndant contends that the rule a nnounced in B lakely

v. Washington, 542 U. S

. _

_ , 1 2 4 S

. C t

. 2 5 3 1 (2 0 0 4 ), p ro h i b i t s a t ri al co u rt fr o m m ak i n g t h e n ec es s ary fa ct u al fi n d i n gs u n d er S t at e v
. W i l k er s o n , 9 0 5 S

. W

. 2 d 9 3 3 (T en n
. 1 9 9 5 ), i n o rd er t o i mp o s e c o n s ec u t i v e s en t en ci n g. Th e state c on te nd s th a t th e de fe nd a nt h a s w a ive d a ny B lake ly iss ue by fa ilingto o bje c t on

Sixth Am e ndme nt g ro un ds a t the tr ia l c ourt or in h is m oti on

fo r n e w tri a l and

tha t, i n a ny e ve nt, B lake ly does not aff

ect Te nnessee ’s sentenc ing sc heme. We ag ree with the state.
I n B lake ly , the Un ite d St a te s Su pr e me Court

he ld t hat ot he r t ha n p ri or c on vic tio ns , a

ny fa c ts not refle cted in the jury ’s ver dict and used to in cr ea se a de fenda nt’s punishment above the pr e su mpt ive se nte nc e mus t be a dmi tte d b y the de fe nd a nt or

fo un d b y the jur y be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t. 5 42 U. S. at __ , 1 24 S. Ct

. a t 25 37 . H ow e ve r, the Te nn e sse e Sup re me Court ha s r e c e ntl y

he ld that fa i l u re to raise B lakely in the trial court wa ives the issue and that, in any event, Te nnessee ’s se nte nc ing pr oc e dure s do no t vio la te the Sixth Am e ndme nt ri g ht to tr ia l by jur y de sc ri be d in

B lake ly and United States v. B ooker, __ U .S. __, 125 S. C t. 738 (2005). See State v
. E d wi n Gom ez and J onathan S. L ondono, No. M2002-01209-SC-R11-CD, Davidson County , __ S.W .3d __ (Tenn. A pr. 15, 2005). Ac cording ly , the def endant’ s relianc e upon B lakely is misplace d. Otherw ise, we se e no problem with the trial cour t’s imposit ion of consec utive sentenc es. Ba sed upon the for eg oing a nd the re cord a s a whole, w e af firm the judg ments of the trial c ourt

.

___________________________________ J OSEPH M. TI PTON, J UDGE