Gregory Bryan Austin pled guilty to two counts of aggravated statutory rape, receiving an agreed two-year sentence for each count, to be served concurrently. The trial court determined that he would serve six months in confinement followed by supervised probation. Austin appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in denying him full probation. The appellate court reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decision.
During the guilty plea submission hearing, the State outlined the facts, revealing that in April 2010, an investigation confirmed Austin engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with two females aged 13 to 17, making it aggravated statutory rape due to his age being ten years older than the victims. Evidence including phone calls and text messages led to the charges. At the sentencing hearing, Detective Ed Merritt detailed the investigation, noting that a mother of one victim reported evidence of sexual encounters, which were confirmed through text messages linked to Austin’s phone number. Although Austin had reserve credentials with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office, he was never a sworn officer. The sexual encounters took place at the Waverly Motel, characterized as consensual, with some financial exchange involved.
Detective Johnny Lanham from the Fort Oglethorpe Police Department testified about his investigation into the Defendant, which began in October 2010, initially reported as a rape but later classified as pandering involving a 15-year-old girl. The investigation revealed Defendant had arranged for the girl to engage in sexual acts with another female. The incidents took place at the Super 8 Motel, and while Defendant had consensual intercourse with a 17-year-old girl, that was not a legal offense in Georgia. However, a 13-year-old girl witnessed this encounter, resulting in a charge of child molestation. Detective Lanham noted that Defendant paid for these services and that the offenses occurred between October 11 and 14, 2010. While Defendant made statements that aligned with the investigation, he was still awaiting trial, and at the time of cross-examination, Detective Lanham was unaware that the child molestation charge had not led to an indictment and that only the pandering charge was pending. The Defendant spent 46 days in custody in Catoosa County, Georgia.
In the subsequent analysis, the Defendant argued that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve six months of a two-year sentence due to reliance on his pending Georgia charges to deny full probation. The court's review of sentencing has shifted to an abuse of discretion standard with a presumption of reasonableness following the Tennessee Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Bise, which emphasized the trial court's broad discretion in imposing sentences. Tennessee's Sentencing Act requires that sentences be within a statutory range, considering mitigating and enhancement factors while adhering to advisory guidelines. The review process includes evaluating trial evidence, presentence reports, and the nature of the criminal conduct.
Evidence and information presented by the parties focused on enhancement and mitigating factors as outlined in Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-35-113 and 40-35-114. The trial court also considered statistical data from the Administrative Office of the Courts regarding Tennessee sentencing practices for similar offenses, as well as any statement made by the defendant concerning sentencing. The Tennessee Supreme Court established that the abuse of discretion standard applies to the manner of serving a sentence, including probation decisions.
In assessing whether confinement is warranted, the trial court must evaluate: (1) the necessity of confinement to protect society from a defendant with a significant criminal history; (2) whether confinement is needed to uphold the seriousness of the offense or to deter similar future offenses; and (3) the ineffectiveness of less restrictive measures previously attempted. Additionally, the trial court is permitted to consider the defendant's potential for rehabilitation along with the relevant mitigating and enhancement factors.
The sentence should be the least severe option necessary to fulfill its intended purpose, with the burden of proving eligibility for full probation lying with the defendant. The defendant was deemed eligible for probation. During the initial sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated that the defendant should receive at least Community Corrections, postponing the final sentencing until later in March. The court initially imposed a two-year sentence in the Department of Correction for a Range I standard offender, mandating the defendant to register as a sex offender and begin treatment.
At the subsequent hearing, it was noted that a related Georgia case was still pending. It was clarified that electronic monitoring was not applicable for community corrections but could be required as a probation condition. The defendant had registered as a sex offender and started treatment. Ultimately, the defendant was sentenced to two years in the Department of Correction for two counts of aggravated statutory rape, with the sentences running concurrently, and was noted to have no prior criminal record.
Proof was presented indicating involvement by a Georgia detective in a case after the defendant's earlier offenses. The court acknowledged the defendant’s eligibility for probation and alternative sentencing due to the nature of his class D felony, considering house arrest as a possibility. However, the pending Georgia case led the court to conclude that house arrest was inappropriate. Concerns were raised about the defendant's rehabilitation, particularly after incurring another case post-guilty plea.
The defendant was sentenced to two years for aggravated statutory rape in count one, with six months to be served in the Department of Correction, followed by supervised probation. He is required to register as a sex offender and undergo sex offender treatment, with electronic monitoring deemed appropriate due to the seriousness of the offense. Count two resulted in a similar sentence—two years suspended on probation, with six months in the Hamilton County Workhouse and the same conditions.
Defense counsel clarified that the defendant's Georgia offenses occurred after his arrest for the current charges but before the guilty pleas. The trial court mentioned this subsequent criminal behavior as a factor in sentencing. The defendant pled guilty to sexual acts with minors and was discovered following a report by one victim’s mother. Evidence showed he continued criminal activity, including arranging sexual encounters involving minors, while awaiting trial for his current offenses. While not indicted for a second child molestation offense, testimony indicated further inappropriate conduct.
Defendant's commission of new offenses in Georgia after his arrest, likely while on bond, negatively impacts his rehabilitation prospects and supports the decision against full probation. The trial court appropriately considered these facts alongside charges in Georgia, as testified by Detective Lanham. Additionally, Defendant had pending felony charges for prescription fraud in Mississippi. Although the term ‘criminal behavior’ remains undefined by the court, sexual acts with a 10-year-old child are unambiguously criminal. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying full probation and mandating that Defendant serve six months of a two-year sentence in confinement. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
