Viola Darlene Stephens pled guilty to theft of property valued at less than $500 (Class A misdemeanor) and driving on a revoked license (Class B misdemeanor). The trial court sentenced her to eleven months and twenty-nine days for theft, with six months to be served in incarceration, and six months for driving on a revoked license, both sentences to run concurrently. On appeal, Stephens argued that the trial court failed to consider a community corrections sentence. After reviewing the record, the court affirmed the trial court’s judgments.
During the plea submission hearing, the State outlined the facts: Dollar General employees witnessed Stephens shoplifting and later saw her return to the store with some stolen items. Police were called, and upon investigation, found additional stolen items in her vehicle. The officer also discovered Stephens was driving on a revoked license. At the sentencing hearing, Stephens described her struggles, including recently being released from rehabilitation, lack of stable housing, and caring for her two sons. She indicated that she relied on her oldest son and public transportation for her mobility.
Defendant moved to a Cumberland Place Apartment with her mother, where she experienced multiple car thefts and other issues. She testified about periods of homelessness and began mental health treatment at Centerstone approximately eight to ten years prior to the hearing, where she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and an anxiety disorder. Currently, she attends monthly meetings with a social worker and a doctor, participates in group therapy, takes medication, and receives disability benefits. Defendant expressed a desire to work about 15 hours a week and also attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. She disclosed having misdemeanor convictions for four thefts, multiple DUIs, and forgery, attributing these to a period of living on the road and being robbed. At the time of her forgery conviction, she was on probation, which led to her incarceration upon revocation. She asserted she is not currently using drugs or alcohol.
In her appeal, Defendant does not challenge the length of her sentence or incarceration but argues that the trial court did not adequately consider her request for sentencing to community corrections. The appellate court conducts a de novo review regarding the manner of service of a sentence, presuming the trial court's determinations are correct unless the record shows otherwise. The burden is on the appellant to demonstrate that the sentence is improper. If the trial court's consideration of relevant factors and factual findings are supported by the record, the appellate court must affirm the sentence, even if a different outcome might have been preferred. Misdemeanor sentencing is governed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-302, which mandates that sentences align with the purposes of the 1989 Sentencing Reform Act. Misdemeanants do not benefit from a minimum sentence presumption, and while separate sentencing hearings are unnecessary for misdemeanors, the trial court must allow reasonable opportunity for argument regarding the length and manner of the sentence. The trial court has more discretion in sentencing misdemeanants compared to felons.
In State v. Johnson, the Tennessee Criminal Appellate Court clarified that for misdemeanor convictions, the trial court must impose a specific sentence consistent with the 1989 Criminal Sentencing Reform Act, considering enhancement and mitigating factors. Unlike felony sentencing, misdemeanor sentencing does not require the court to document its findings. Defendants convicted of misdemeanors must receive a determinate sentence with a maximum of seventy-five percent served before becoming eligible for rehabilitative programs, and they are not presumed eligible for alternative sentencing. The Community Corrections Act aims to provide nonviolent felony offenders with community-based punishment options, but eligibility requires meeting specific criteria, including being nonviolent and not previously incarcerated. In this case, the defendant, convicted of two misdemeanors, did not meet the eligibility requirements outlined in T.C.A. 40-36-106 for community corrections, nor does the misdemeanor statute allow for such placement. Consequently, the trial court's decision not to consider community corrections for the misdemeanor sentences was upheld. The judgments of the trial court were affirmed.
