State v. Mann

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) FOR PUBLICATION
) Filed: February 17, 1998
Appellee, )
) DYER CRIMINAL
v. )
) Hon. Joe G. Riley,
GLENN BERNARD MANN, ) Judge

Appellant,
)
) Supreme Court
FILED
) No. 02-S01-9609-CC-00077
February 17, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.
ORDER ON PETITION TO REHEAR Appellate C ourt Clerk

A petition for rehearing has been filed on behalf of appellant, Glenn Bernard

Mann in which he requests the opportunity to rebrief and reargue the issue that his

sentence is disproportionate under this Court’s recent decision in State v. Bland,

__ S.W.2d __ (Tenn. 1997). He asserts that “the failure to allow him the benefit of

the new Bland procedures . . . would violate the Due Process Clauses of the

Fourteenth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution.”

We disagree. The opinion in Bland plainly states that the enumerated

factors had been drawn from “a review of the comparative proportionality

discussions contained in our prior decisions.” Therefore, the procedures are not

“new.”

An amicus curiae brief on comparative proportionality review has been

submitted by Professor Dwight Aarons, of the University of Tennessee College of

Law and Professor Michael Blankenship, of East Tennessee State University. We

note that the brief was due before the decisions in Bland and Mann were

released, but it was not filed until after their release. The amicus curiae submits

that the pool of similar cases should include all first degree murder cases. In

addition, they argue that some of the factors enumerated in the Bland decision do

not aid the analysis, and others are irrelevant to the proportionality question. A

majority of this Court agreed upon the analysis set forth in Bland. Though the
Court did not have the benefit of the amicus curiae brief, the decision in Bland

addressed the issues raised therein. The members of the Court continue to

adhere to their respective opinions in Bland.

Accordingly, a majority of this Court had determined that the petition to

rehear should be denied. Justice Reid would grant the petition to rehear and

utilize some of the material in the amicus curiae brief to refine the procedures

announced in Bland.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition to rehear is denied.

FOR THE COURT:

_____________________________________
Frank F. Drowota, III,
Justice

Concur:
Anderson, C. J.
Birch, Holder, JJ.

Reid, J. - Dissents from the denial of the petition to rehear.