Alternative Sentencing
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
State v. Johnson, No. W2022-01041-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Oct. 9, 2023).
A trial court’s decision regarding alternative sentencing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness for a sentence that falls within the appropriate range and reflects that a decision was based on the purposes and principles of sentencing. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court’s decision regarding probation will only be invalidated if the court “wholly departed from the relevant statutory considerations in reaching its determination.” State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tenn. 2014) (order) (per curiam). Under an abuse of discretion standard, an appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Id. at 475. The trial court must also consider a defendant’s potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation or treatment. See Tenn. Code. Ann. § 40-35-103(5).
State v. Allen, No. M2022-01400-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 8, 2023).
The abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard of review set by our supreme court in Bise also applies to a trial court’s decision to grant or deny an alternative sentence, including probation. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Bise, 380 S.W. 3d at 708).
State v. Pace, No. W2022-01092-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 1, 2023).
“Sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court’s decision regarding probation or other alternative sentencing is reviewed likewise. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 708).
State v. Horn, No. M2022-00615-CCA-R3-CD, p. 9-10 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 19, 2023).
The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that “sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a ‘presumption of reasonableness.’” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). Our supreme court has stated that “the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness applies to all sentencing decisions.” State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014) (citing State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. 2013)). Specifically, our supreme court has stated this standard also applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). The court has also stated this standard of appellate review applies to a trial court’s decision to grant or deny judicial diversion. See King, 432 S.W.3d at 324.
However, to be afforded deference on appeal, the trial court must “place on the record any reason for a particular sentence.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705. In the context of judicial diversion, the presumption of reasonableness does not apply when “the trial court fails to consider and weigh the applicable common law factors[.]” King, 432 S.W.3d at 327-28. The same holds true for alternative sentencing decisions. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 29. But as this court has observed,
[T]rial courts need not comprehensively articulate their findings concerning sentencing, nor must their reasoning be “particularly lengthy or detailed.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 706. Instead, the trial court “should set forth enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Id.
State v. Sheets, No. M2022-00538-CCA-R3-CD, 2023 WL 2908652, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 12, 2023) (alterations in original), no perm. app. filed.
In short, the trial court’s sentencing decision will be upheld on appeal “so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and principles listed by statute.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709- 10. A defendant bears the burden of proving the sentence is improper. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts; see also State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).
State v. Pitts, No. E2022-01375-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 6, 2023).
The standard of review for questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence is an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences reflecting a decision based upon the principles and purposes of sentencing. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). “[A] trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation will not be invalidated unless the trial court wholly departed from the relevant statutory considerations in reaching its determination.” State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473, 476 (Tenn. 2014) (order) (per curiam). However, our supreme court has reiterated that the ruling in State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012), “specifically requires trial courts to articulate the reasons for the sentence in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing in order for the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness to apply on appeal.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698-99). “[A]ppellate courts cannot properly review a sentence if the trial court fails to articulate in the record its reasons for imposing the sentence.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at at 705 n.41.
State v. Wilbourn, No. W2022-01199-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 28, 2023).
When a defendant challenges whether he or she should have been granted probation or any other form of alternative sentencing, we review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness when the sentence falls within the applicable statutory range and reflects the purposes and principles of sentencing. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). As the appealing party, the Defendant “bears the burden of showing that the imposition of probation was improper.” State v. Ring, 56 S.W.3d 577, 586 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001).
State v. Santiago, No. W2022-01044-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 15, 2023).
A trial court’s sentencing decisions, including questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence, are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, with a presumption of reasonableness granted to within-range sentences that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of sentencing. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). A trial court only abuses its discretion when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997).
State v. Crabtree, No. M2021-01154-CCA-R3-CD, p. 28 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 21, 2023).
The same abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness standard used to review the length of a sentence and consecutive sentencing also applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). “Bise specifically requires trial courts to articulate the reasons for the sentence in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing in order for the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness to apply on appeal.” Pollard, 432 S.W.3d at 861 (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698-99); see Trent, 533 S.W.3d at 292.
State v. Phillips, No. M2021-01204-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2023).
A trial court’s within-range sentencing decisions, if based upon the purposes and principles of sentencing, are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The same standard applies to “questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). “Bise specifically requires trial courts to articulate the reasons for the sentence in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing in order for the abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness to apply on appeal.” State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 861 (Tenn. 2013) (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 698-99); see also State v. Trent, 533 S.W.3d 282, 292 (Tenn. 2017).
State v. Baker, No. E2022-00385-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 27, 2023).
The standard of review for questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence is an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012).
State v. Stinnett, No. M2021-01266-CCA-R3-CD, p. 19 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Dec. 15, 2022)
The abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, likewise applies to a trial court’s determination regarding the manner of service of a sentence. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278-79. Any sentence that does not involve complete confinement is an alternative sentence. See generally State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001).
