Opinion ID: 1057832
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Waiver of Issue for Tactical Reasons

Text: The fourth consideration for plain error review is whether the record indicates that the Defendants waived their Sixth Amendment claims for tactical reasons. Neither the pleadings filed by the Defendants with the trial court nor the transcript of the sentencing hearing provides any indication as to why the Defendants initially failed to raise a Sixth Amendment challenge to the trial court's use of enhancement factors (2) and (9). In their pre- Gomez I briefs before this Court, however, both Defendants argued that their Sixth Amendment claims for relief from their sentences did not arise until Blakely was decided, more than two years after their sentencing hearing. It is true that this Court has refused to find plain error where the record discloses that the alleged error resulted from a tactical choice by the defense. For instance, in Smith, the Court of Criminal Appeals determined sua sponte that the defendant was entitled to relief for plain error because the trial court did not provide the jury with a particular instruction regarding an evidentiary matter. 24 S.W.3d at 282. However, this Court subsequently determined that the defendant had not objected to admission of the evidence and that the record was clear that the defense's decision not to object . . . was a result of a deliberate, tactical trial strategy. Id. at 283. Indeed, during oral argument before this Court, defense counsel conceded that the decision not to object . . . was a `tactical decision.' Id. Accordingly, this Court determined that the defendant was not entitled to relief under the plain error doctrine. Id. at 284; cf. Bledsoe, 226 S.W.3d at 355 (holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in granting relief for plain error where the defendant failed to include in his appeal key parts of the record resulting in uncertainty as to whether the defendant's failure to request a particular jury instruction was a tactical decision); Studdard v. State, 182 S.W.3d 283, 288 (Tenn.2005) (holding that all of the criteria for plain error were not met because [t]he record strongly suggests the defendant pleaded guilty to . . . a lower grade offense [than that charged] for tactical reasons). In contrast, the record in this case is silent and does not establish that the Defendants made a tactical decision to waive their Sixth Amendment claims. Rather, it appears that defense counsel, like many others in the legal community, did not realize until Blakely was decided that the Defendants had a potential claim for relief under Apprendi . [10] Accordingly, we conclude that the fourth prerequisite for plain error has been met.