State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kirkendall - Concurring and Dissenting
This text of State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kirkendall - Concurring and Dissenting (State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kirkendall - Concurring and Dissenting) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs August 3, 2004
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER KIRKENDALL
Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County Nos. 02-02068, 69 Chris Craft, Judge
No. W2004-00784-CCA-R3-CD - Filed September 16, 2004
THOMAS T. WOODALL, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. _____, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004), enhancement factors (3), (10), and (21) of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-114 cannot be applied in sentencing Defendant. However, instead of modifying the sentence, I would remand for a new sentencing hearing. In light of Blakely, I feel that the trial court should be given the opportunity to impose the appropriate punishment upon the only valid enhancement factor in this case: proof of a prior conviction(s) of defendant as an adult.
___________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Tennessee v. Christopher Kirkendall - Concurring and Dissenting, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-christopher-kirkendall-concur-tenncrimapp-2004.