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.