Stephen Anthony Scott v. State of Tennessee

The defendant, Stephen Anthony Scott, appeals the sentencing decision of the Montgomery CountyCircuit Court. The defendantwas convicted of aggravated robbery, a Class B felony; attempted aggravated robbery, a Class C felony; especially aggravated kidnapping, a Class A felony; aggravated kidnapping, a Class B felony; and attempted robbery, a Class D felony. The defendant was originally sentenced to an effective term of thirty-seven years in the Department of Correction. After multiple appeals and new filings in both state and federal courts, the defendant’s case was eventually sent back to the trial court for re-sentencing in accordance with Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). A resentencing hearing was held, and the trial court determined that one enhancement factor was applicable, that being that the defendant had juvenile adjudications which would have been felony convictions if they had occurred when the defendant was an adult. As such, the trial court, applying partial consecutive sentencing, resentenced the defendant to an effective sentence of thirty-four years and six months. On appeal, the defendant raises multiple sentencing issues for our review: (1) whether the imposed sentences are still in violation of Blakely, based upon the application of the single enhancement; (2) whether the imposed sentences are illegal as the State failed to file notice of intent to seek enhancement factors; (3) whether the court erred in imposing consecutive sentencing; (4) whether the court erred in treating a juvenile adjudication as a felony conviction for enhancement purposes; and (5) whether the court erred in failing to offer the defendant the right to waive his ex post facto rights and be sentenced pursuant to the 2005 amendments to the Sentencing Act. Following review of the record, we conclude that the trial court erred in applying the enhancement factor to the defendant’s sentences. Accordingly, we conclude that the presumptive minimum sentences for each conviction must be imposed in this case, and we remand to the trial court for entry of corrected judgments to so reflect. Additionally, we conclude that the defendant’s others issues are not meritorious and that no relief is warranted.