Probation, Denial of
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. Webb, No. W2023-00195-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 27, 2023).
A trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness when the sentence reflects the purposes and principles of sentencing. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278-79. “[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). The burden of establishing suitability for probation rests with a defendant, who must demonstrate that probation will “‘subserve the ends of justice and the best interest of both the public and the defendant.’” Statev.Souder,105S.W.3d602,607(Tenn.Crim.App.2002)(quotingState v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 303(b); State v. Russell, 773 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tenn. 1989); State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Carter, No. M2022-00769-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 22, 2023).
Appellate courts review a trial court’s grant or denial of an alternative sentence under an abuse of discretion standard, with “a presumption of reasonableness [] to within- range sentences that reflect a decision based upon the purposes and principles 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).
State v. Paige, No. W2022-01792-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 28, 2023).
We review the length and manner of service of within-range sentences imposed by trial court 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).
State v. Phillips, No. E2022-01148-CCA-R3-CD, p. 12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 7, 2023).
A trial court’s decision to grant or deny probation is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness when the sentence reflects the purposes and principles of sentencing. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278-79. “[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). The burden of establishing suitability for probation rests with a defendant, who must demonstrate that probation will “‘subserve the ends of justice and the best interest of both the public and the defendant.’” Statev.Souder,105S.W.3d602,607(Tenn.Crim.App.2002)(quotingState v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)); see Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 303(b); State v. Russell, 773 S.W.2d 913, 915 (Tenn. 1989); State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008).
State v. Burns, No. W2021-00939-CCA-R3-CD, p. 11-12 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Jan. 20, 2023).
The party challenging the sentence imposed by the trial court has the burden of establishing that the sentence is erroneous. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991). Furthermore, a defendant bears the burden of proving suitability for probation, including showing that probation will serve the ends of justice and the best interests of the public and the defendant. Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 347. In determining whether to grant probation, a trial court should consider whether: (1) “confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct;” (2) “confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses;” or (3) “measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C). Additionally, the trial court should consider a defendant’s potential or lack of potential for rehabilitation as well as: “(1) the defendant’s amenability to correction; (2) the circumstances of the offense; (3) the defendant’s criminal record; (4) the defendant’s social history; (5) the defendant’s physical and mental health; and (6) special and general deterrence value.” State v. Trent, 533 S.W.3d 282, 291 (Tenn. 2017); Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35- 103(a). In assessing a defendant’s potential for rehabilitation, candor is a relevant factor, and “the lack of candor militates against the grant of probation.” State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602, 608 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002); see State v. Bunch, 646 S.W.2d 158, 160 (Tenn. 1983).
To facilitate meaningful appellate review, the trial court must state on the record the sentencing principles it considered and the reasons for the sentence imposed. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(e)(1)(B); Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705. Mere inadequacy in the articulation of the reasons, however, should not negate the presumption [of reasonableness].” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 705. A sentence should be upheld if the trial court provided “enough to satisfy the appellate court that [it] has considered the parties’ arguments and [that it] has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] . . . legal decision making.” Id. (quoting Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356-57 (2007)).
State v. Pitts, No. M2021-01334-CCA-R3-CD, p. 4 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 22, 2022).
When the record establishes that the trial court imposed a sentence within the appropriate range that reflects a “proper application of the purposes and principles of our Sentencing Act,” this Court reviews the trial court’s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The same standard of review applies to a trial court’s decision regarding “probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); see also State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Tenn. 2014) (applying the same standard to judicial diversion). This Court will uphold the trial court’s sentencing decision “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. The party appealing the sentence has the burden of demonstrating its impropriety. T.C.A. § 40-35-401, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.; see also State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).
State v. Blackwell, No. M2020-01171-CCA-R3-CD, p. 8 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2022).
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 probation. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Bise, 380 S.W. 3d at 708).
State v. Donton, No. E2021-00721-CCA-R3-CD, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Aug. 31, 2022).
When a trial court denies probation or any other alternative sentence to an eligible defendant and states on the record reasons that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing, the court’s decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). If the trial court fails to articulate the reasons for denying an alternative sentence, the “abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness” does not apply on appeal and an appellate court can either (1) conduct a de novo review to determine whether there is an adequate basis for denying probation; or (2) remand for the trial court to consider the requisite factors in determining whether to grant probation. See State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851, 864 (Tenn. 2013).
State v. Waters, No. E2021-00218-CCA-R3-CD, p. 17 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. July 28, 2022).
As for the of full , “the abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness, applies to . . . questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012).
State v. Claiborne, No. E2021-00974-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. June 30, 2022).
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 probation. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 708).
State of Tennessee v. Palmar, No. M2021-00480-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. May 13, 2022).
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 probation. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012) (citing Bise, 380 S.W. 3d at 708).
State of Tennessee v. Emery, No. W2021-00086-CCA-R3-CD, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Apr. 18, 2022).
When a trial court denies probation or any other alternative sentence to an eligible defendant and states on the record reasons in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing, the court’s decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278-79; Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. We will reverse the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion “only when the court applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an injustice to the pay complaining.” State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)).
State of Tennessee v. Borden, No. W2021-00305-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Mar. 22, 2022).
When a trial court denies probation or any other alternative sentence to an eligible defendant and states on the record reasons that are in accordance with the purposes and principles of sentencing, the court’s decision is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard, accompanied by a presumption of reasonableness. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278- 79; Bise, 380 S.W.3d at707. We will reverse the trial court’s decision for abuse of discretion “only when the court applied an incorrect legal standard, or reached a decision which is against logic or reasoning that caused an injustice to the party complaining.” State v. Gilliland, 22 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tenn. 2000) (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
State of Tennessee v. Gilmore, No. M2020-01620-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 10, 2022).
The standard of review for questions related to probation or any other alternative sentence is an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d at 278-79. Generally, probation is available to a defendant sentenced to ten years or less. T.C.A. § 40-35-303(a) (2018). The burden of establishing suitability for probation rests with a defendant, who must demonstrate that probation will “‘subserve the ends of justice and the best interest of both the public and the defendant.’” State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-303(b); State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008).
A sentence is based upon “the nature of the offense and the totality of the circumstances,” including a defendant’s background. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168 (Tenn. 1991); see State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651, 653 (Tenn. 2006). A trial court is permitted to sentence a defendant to incarceration when:
(A) [c]onfinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct;
(B) [c]onfinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or
(C) [m]easures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant[.]
T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C) (2018); see Trotter, 201 S.W.3d at 654. A trial court must consider (1) the defendant’s amenability to correction, (2) the circumstances of the offense, (3) the defendant’s criminal record, (4) the defendant’s social history, (5) the defendant’s physical and mental health, and (6) the deterrence value to the defendant and others. See State v. Trent, 533 S.W.3d 282, 291 (Tenn. 2017) (concluding that the same factors used to determine whether to impose judicial diversion are applicable in determining whether to impose probation); see also State v. Electroplating, 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998); State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996).
