State of Tennessee v. James Austin - Dissenting

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES AUSTIN Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 00-04749 John P. Colton, Jr., Judge No. W2004-00510-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 14, 2005 DAVID G. HAYES, Judge, dissenting. The majority concludes that modification of the defendant’s sentence is required in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ______, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). I must respectfully dissent. The majority’s analysis of the issue ends with the finding of Blakely error. Clearly, this was not the import of the Supreme Court’s recent holding in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), wherein the Court opined that not “every [Blakely/Booker] appeal will lead to a new sentencing hearing. That is because we expect reviewing courts to apply ordinary prudential doctrines determining, for example, whether the issue was raised below and whether it fails the ‘plain-error-test.’” No such test was performed in this case. After review, I find the evidence overwhelmingly supports application of sentencing enhancement factors (3), leader in the commission of the offense, and (11), the defendant committed a crime where the risk to human life was high. In the midst of a crowd of thirty to fifty people, the defendant began firing his weapon. Additionally, although not found by the trial court, the proof supports application of enhancement factor (10), employment of a firearm. The Supreme Court has held that generally to establish “plain- error,” the defendant must make a specific showing of prejudice. United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785 (2002). Interestingly, the defendant does not contest factual application of the enhancing factors. Thus, failure to perform plain-error review as contemplated by the Supreme Court grants the defendant an undeserved windfall. I find that under plain-error review, had a jury heard the sentencing proof, they would have found the above factors applicable. For this reason, no prejudice is shown. Accordingly, I would affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court. _____________________________ David G. Hayes, Judge