Appeals similarly elected to address this issue on the merits. See Smith, 2014 WL 3954062, at *18-19. In light of these rather unique circumstances, we conclude that the counsel table issue was properiy preserved for appeal. To rule in favor of the State’s argument that this issue was “never contained in any valid motion for new trial, and [that] it [was] not enough that the defendant raised it orally in the motion for new trial hearing because the' defendant never reduced it to writing,” would elevate form over substance. See' Lane v. State, 316 S.W.3d 555, 568 (Tenn.2010) (rejecting argument that no guilty plea is valid unless the defendant is specifically asked “How do you plead?” because argument values form over substance)’; State v. Livingston, 197 S.W.3d 710, 716 (Tenn.2006) (<HOLDING>); Sample v. State, 82 S.W.3d 267, 281
holding that at resentencing the state must present evidence on an enhanced sentencing factor despite having done so at the prior sentencing hearing holding that to rule that the defendant did not have sufficient notice of the states intent to seek enhanced sentencing would be to impose a hypertechnical procedural requirement that elevates form over substance holding that because resentencing following reversal is a new proceeding the state must introduce evidence that the defendant qualifies for enhanced sentencing even though such evidence was introduced in the previous sentencing hearing holding an allegation that defendant caused death by cutting victims throat with sharp object was sufficient to give notice of states intent to seek deadly weapon finding holding that absent legislative intent to impose derivative liability enhanced sentences based on the use of a weapon during a crime may not be imposed on defendants who were not personally armed