State of Tennessee v. Paul William Purvis, W2016-00386-CCA-R3-CD

Paul William Purvis pled guilty (best-interest plea) to theft of property > $10,000 (Class C) after indictment for Class B theft; no negotiated sentence—court to determine sentence.
In 2011 the State filed a notice it would seek Range II (multiple offender) sentencing and listed twelve prior convictions.
At the 2016 sentencing hearing the State argued the prior-convictions list showed Purvis qualified as a Range III (persistent offender) and asked the court to apply Range III; defense objected to lack of notice.
The trial court sentenced Purvis as a Range III persistent offender to the ten-year Range III minimum; Purvis appealed, arguing the State’s notice was inadequate to permit Range III enhancement.
The Court of Criminal Appeals found the notice ambiguous (it expressly named Range II but listed enough priors for Range III) but concluded Purvis failed to show he inquired into the ambiguity or suffered prejudice from the ambiguous notice, and therefore affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State's notice satisfying Tenn. Code § 40-35-202 and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 12.3 was adequate to support Range III sentencing	State: listing convictions substantially complied and listing many priors created at least ambiguous notice that Purvis should have inquired further; not an “empty” notice	Purvis: notice expressly stated Range II and therefore did not fairly notify him Range III enhancement might be sought; he lacked adequate notice and suffered prejudice	Notice was ambiguous but not fatally defective; because Purvis did not demonstrate he inquired into ambiguity or show prejudice, Range III sentence affirmed

State v. Adams, 788 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn. 1990) (notice purpose is fair warning and defendant must seek continuance and show prejudice for untimely/defective notice)
State v. Livingston, 197 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2006) (substantial compliance with notice statute requires basic information but not perfection)
State v. Benham, 113 S.W.3d 702 (Tenn. 2003) (an ‘‘empty notice’’ lacking nature of prior felonies is insufficient and requires resentencing)
State v. Carter, 121 S.W.3d 579 (Tenn. 2003) (absence or insufficiency of notice can require resentencing)
State v. Taylor, 63 S.W.3d 400 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (listing priors without specifying range can constitute substantial compliance and obligate defendant to inquire)
State v. Nichols, 877 S.W.2d 722 (Tenn. 1994) (minor clerical errors in notice do not necessarily render it misleading)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review presumes missing transcript would support trial court; appellant bears record-duty)