Opinion ID: 1670672
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: contentions of the state-appellee

Text: The State contends that the defendant initiated the string of error by moving to strike the State's notice of intent to seek enhanced punishment, and cannot now complain since his actions invited any alleged error on the part of the trial judge. Further, the State argues that the defendant has waived consideration of this issue by failing to complain at trial regarding the failure of the trial judge to charge the punishments applicable to Range II. Third, the State submits that the charge given was constitutional, that the defendant had no constitutional right to an instruction as to Range II punishment because it is purely a sentencing issue. Finally, the State says that any alleged error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The State concedes that the trial judge committed non-constitutional error when he failed to charge the jury as to the range of punishments to which the defendant was subject upon conviction, but asserts that this error was harmless. The State contends that Rule 36(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure only entitles a defendant to a new trial where the alleged error affirmatively affected the verdict. The State asserts that errors in instruction as to sentencing do not constitute reversible error, as sentencing matters are irrelevant to the determination of guilt or innocence. The State points out that the defendant has presented no evidence to support his claim that the error must have affected the jury's verdict. Specifically, the State argues, there is no testimony from the jurors that the allegedly improper instruction caused them to convict the defendant as charged, as opposed to a conviction on a lesser included offense. The State says that the verdict was in no way impacted, as the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.