Court Opinion

ID: 9645363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:22:49.285148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:28.019940
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
HENRY, Justice.
Both the petitioner and the State have filed petitions to rehear. We respond first to the State’s petition.
The State takes the position that the thrust of our opinion was to preclude the trial judge from charging Section 1 of Chapter 163 of the Public Acts of 1973. This is an erroneous interpretation of our holding. This section remains intact.
We dealt only with so much of Section 2 of Chapter 163 of the Public Acts of 1973 (§ 40-2707, T.C.A.) as directs that the trial judge charge the jury as to the provisions of §§ 40-3612, 40-3613, 41-332 and 41-334, T.C.A. Section 1 of the Act (first paragraph, § 40-3707) is in no way affected. This section relates to verdict and sentencing and, in no sense, does it relate to the court’s charge on parole violations. It is therefore well within the limits of the caption and is germane thereto. This is clearly apparent when consideration is given to the long history of this portion of § 40-2707. See Chapter 8, Public Acts of 1913 (§ 7201-9, Thompson’s 1917 Revision of Shannon’s Code of Tennessee) and Chapter 52 of the Public Acts of 1923 (§ 11766, Williams’ Tennessee Code of 1934).
*620The State also insists that the phrase “final conviction” as used in the concluding portion of the opinion is synonymous with “jury verdict.” A careful reading of the phraseology used will clearly indicate that we were primarily concerned that this case not precipitate petitions for post-conviction relief. A “final conviction”, as used in the main opinion, simply means those cases wherein jury verdicts have been returned but the usual appellate review, vis a vis post-conviction relief, has been completed.
The State’s petition complains of the action taken in State v. William Wayne Robinson and State v. Roosevelt Lewis, the companion cases which were consolidated with Farris for the purpose of their consideration by this Court.
The thrust of the State’s petition in this regard is that since the Court found that “the charge to the jury bears only upon the question of punishment and has no relation to the jury’s finding of guilt or innocence”, the proper relief should have been a remand “only for a determination of punishment.”
We sustain the State’s petition in this regard.
The first case bearing upon this question is Corlew v. State, 181 Tenn. 220, 180 S.W.2d 900 (1944), wherein the jury found the defendant guilty of grand larceny on evidence warranting conviction for petit larceny only, and fixed his maximum punishment at three (3) years imprisonment. The Court held that the sentence should be reduced to the minimum of one (1) year for petit larceny, provided the State consented. With respect to the State’s consent and the necessity therefor, the Court said:
[T]he State has an equal right with the defendant to have the jury fix the term of imprisonment. Since the State may feel that upon reversal and new trial a verdict might be obtained on conviction of defendant for petit larceny properly fixing his imprisonment at a longer term than the minimum of one year provided by statute, we feel that the action heretofore indicated should not be taken except upon the State’s consent. 181 Tenn. at 230, 180 S.W.2d at 903.
In Forsha v. State, 183 Tenn. 604, 194 S.W.2d 463 (1946), the Court found that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree, but that it did support a conviction for murder in the second degree. The Court accordingly “corrected” the judgment by fixing the minimum sentence for murder in the second degree.
It is the theory of both Corlew and For-sha that where the indictment embraced several offenses of different grades and the accused was convicted of the greater, the jury by its verdict, has also convicted him of all lesser offenses.
Facially, Forsha contains no indication that the reduced sentence was conditioned upon the consent of the State; however, a subsequent case, State v. Odom, 200 Tenn. 231, 292 S.W.2d 23 (1956) points out that:
The State, in its answer to Forsha’s petition to rehear, expressly approved the action of this Court in reducing the grade, and called attention to Corlew v. State, 181 Tenn. 220, 180 S.W.2d 900. 200 Tenn. at 234, 292 S.W.2d at 24.
In Odom the Court recognizes the fact that it does not affirmatively appear in Waldie v. State, 190 Tenn. 537, 230 S.W.2d 993 (1950), that the reduction was made on condition that the State consent. The Court then observes that “[t]he requirement of this condition is so plainly stated in Cor-lew (cit.) as to necessitate the conclusion that it was assumed in the Waldie case without being mentioned.” 200 Tenn. at 234-35, 292 S.W.2d at 24.
In Huffman v. State, 200 Tenn. 487, 292 S.W.2d 738 (1956), the Advocate General, Nat Tipton, a distinguished lawyer and a recognized authority in the field of criminal law, argued to the Court that when the proof shows a defendant to be guilty of a lesser included offense than that for which he was convicted, then the Court should sustain the conviction for the lesser included offense and at the same time fix the minimum penalty under the lesser offense.
The Court concluded that the judgment should be modified and the case remanded for the purpose of having a jury fix the *621punishment within the maximum as charged in the indictment.
In Huffman, the Court did not condition its action upon the acquiescence of the State; however, it is again pointed out that the Advocate General, representing the State, urged the Court to treat the verdict as being absolutely valid so far as it convicts the plaintiff-in-error of the offense of assault and battery, the lesser included offense. There was, therefore, no occasion for conditioning the action upon the State’s approval.
Huffman stands as authority for the proposition that bifurcated trials are permissible under the Constitution of Tennessee since1 “No where in this constitutional provision is it provided that the same jury that finds the man guilty must fix the punishment.” 200 Tenn. at 499, 292 S.W.2d at 743.
Guidelines for the sentencing hearing wherein the only question for the consideration of the jury is the extent of the punishment are established as follows:
Thus both sides may introduce proof as to how the assault was committed, the injuries, aggravation or mitigation, etc., so that the jury may properly fix the penalty. The trial judge should charge the jury that the plaintiff in error is guilty of assault and battery and that the fixing of the punishment is all they are to do. 200 Tenn. at 498, 292 S.W.2d at 743.
The Huffman guidelines are specifically approved in Hunter v. State, 496 S.W.2d 900 (Tenn.1972), wherein the Court reiterates that there is neither a statutory nor a constitutional prohibition against bifurcated trials.
Other cases supporting a correction or modification of a judgment and its reduction to the statutory minimum, conditioned upon the State’s consent, and in its absence a remand for the fixing by a jury of a sentence within the statutory limits are Whitsett v. State, 201 Tenn. 317, 299 S.W.2d 2 (1957); Hunt v. State, 202 Tenn. 221; 303 S.W.2d 740 (1957); Cooper v. State, 210 Tenn. 63, 356 S.W.2d 405 (1962); Smith v. State, 212 Tenn. 510, 370 S.W.2d 543 (1963), and the recent case of Smith et al. v. State, 527 S.W.2d 737 (Tenn.1975) where this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Fones vacated the punishment set, fixed the term at the minimum sentence, subject to the consent of the State, and in the absence of the State’s acceptance of the reduction, remanded for a new trial “solely on the issue of punishment, in accordance with the guidelines provided” by Huffman. 527 S.W.2d at 739.
Adhering to the principles so firmly established in these cases, and responsive to the State’s well-considered petition to rehear in this regard, we recede from our original opinion in this particular, and modify it so as to provide that if the State does not consent to the reduction of the sentences of William Wayne Robinson and Roosevelt Lewis to the statutory minimum for their respective offenses, their cases will be remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of punishment, in accordance with the guidelines provided by Huffman v. State, 200 Tenn. 487, 292 S.W.2d 738 at 743 (1956).
All other questions raised in the State’s petition to rehear were considered in the preparation of the main opinion and have been reconsidered in the light of the petition to rehear and are respectfully overruled.
Counsel for James E. Farris has also filed a petition to rehear taking the Court to task for the holding that error was not assigned on the basis of the charge to the jury on parole considerations.
The stated ground for the petition is: Petitioner did in fact raise the same objections, assign as error, and argue the same point of law followed by this Honorable Court in modifying and/or reversing the convictions of fellow petitioners William Wayne Robinson and Roosevelt Lewis.
We quote from the petition for the writ of certiorari filed in behalf of James E. Farris as follows:
*622The trial court erred in instructing the jury regarding the doubling of the minimum punishment, said law which authorizes such a change (sic) is unconstitutional.
While counsel charges the Court with a “strained interpretation” of this assignment it would be both strained and strange to construe the assignment so made as being directed at any portion of § 40-2707 T.C.A. except the first paragraph thereof. This is the identical assignment made on motion for a new trial and in the Court of Criminal Appeals. Only this and nothing more.
This Court operates on the basis of errors assigned for our consideration and we have neither the disposition nor the duty to search the record and decide cases and controversies on the basis of unassigned error.
The petition of James E. Farris is respectfully overruled.
In order to clarify further our holding in this case we point out that the fact that a trial judge, prior to the release of our opinion, may have charged the jury on parole considerations does not necessarily mean that the error is reversible or that we will follow the Farris procedure. In Rogers v. State, 196 Tenn. 263, 265 S.W.2d 559 (1954), then Chief Justice Neil, with respect to the Forsha procedure said:
But former decisions cannot be considered as a criterion or authority for thus mitigating a sentence fixed by the jury and trial court in a given case. Every case must be governed by its own facts, and a decision made according to the demands of law. 196 Tenn. at 267, 265 S.W.2d at 561.
In other words, “every tub must stand on its own bottom.”
We do not intend to dilute the meaning and significance of the Court’s holding in this case by these comments. Where the prohibited charge is given after the release of the main opinion, the error is reversible. The rule we announce will be applied along with all other relevant criteria in all cases arising prior to its release.
In order to correct an inadvertent error appearing in the main opinion, the sentences are reduced as follows:
William Wayne Robinson to not less than three (3) years nor more than three (3) years; Roosevelt Lewis to not less than five (5) years nor more than five (5) years.
Justices Cooper and Harbison continue to dissent from the main opinion and Justice Brock continues to adhere to the position taken in his concurring opinion; however, all members of the Court concur in the legal conclusions articulated in this opinion on the petitions to rehear.
All concur.

. See Sec. 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution of Tennessee.