Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State of Tennessee v. Eric Thomas Noe - Dissenting
Citation: Not availableDocket: E2004-00550-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; January 6, 2005; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The case involves a direct appeal by Eric Thomas Noe from a sentencing decision made by the Criminal Court for McMinn County. The majority opinion calls for a modification of Noe's sentence based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington, which addresses the need for jury findings on facts that enhance a sentence. Judge David G. Hayes dissents, arguing that Noe waived any challenge related to Blakely by failing to raise objections during the sentencing hearing, as per Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 36(a). Hayes emphasizes that established appellate procedures should apply, asserting that in a similar case, United States v. Cotton, claims regarding enhanced sentences were considered forfeited if not presented at trial. Hayes contends that reviewing and modifying the sentence on appeal undermines the trial court's role in sentencing and deprives the State of the opportunity to respond. He states that such issues can only be reviewed under the plain error standard, which requires the error to be significant enough to have likely altered the trial's outcome. According to Hayes, the record supports the application of enhancing factors related to Noe's prior criminal history and his past noncompliance with release conditions. While the majority rejects one of these factors as violating Blakely, Hayes argues that the evidence for this factor was uncontested and that a jury would likely have reached the same conclusion. He concludes that Noe has not demonstrated how the alleged Blakely error prejudiced the outcome of his sentencing, advocating for the affirmation of the original six-year sentence.