Joseph Brennan was charged with two counts of child rape and two counts of incest but pleaded guilty to two counts of incest and two counts of attempted child rape. The trial court sentenced him to ten years for each attempted rape conviction and three years for each incest conviction, resulting in a total effective sentence of twenty years, with the attempted rape sentences served consecutively and the incest sentences concurrently. Brennan appealed, claiming the trial court erred by denying him a split confinement sentence. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
During the sentencing hearing, Detective Dirk Witherow testified as the lead investigator, detailing the victim's case, which involved allegations of abuse occurring in both Pennsylvania and Tennessee. The victim, ten years old at the time of the investigation, was confirmed to have been abused by her 19-year-old brother, Brennan, since she was five. The investigation was initiated after a report from an acquaintance of Brennan, and upon inquiry, the victim corroborated the abuse. Child protective services took custody of the victim, while Brennan turned himself in to authorities. Additionally, psychologist Donna Moore provided expert testimony regarding Brennan's evaluation, referencing prior therapy and records related to his behavior.
Dr. Moore provided testimony regarding the Defendant's history of sexual abuse and psychological evaluation. After being accused of sexual abuse in Pennsylvania in 2004, the Defendant received counseling and was diagnosed with mild depression and ADHD, but no recidivism risk assessment was performed at that time. The Defendant detailed his sexual abuse of the victim, noting prior engagement with adult pornography and chat rooms, and admitted to later viewing child pornography. He described specific abusive acts towards the victim in 2004, including cunnilingus and forcing her to perform fellatio, while denying any physical violence but admitting to verbal intimidation. He claimed to have selected the victim over his older sisters to avoid detection. His abusive behavior ceased temporarily due to a safety plan established by his parents, which prohibited him from being alone with the victim, but resumed in 2007 after he circumvented the plan. Following disclosures to Ms. Skuba, who also reported being sexually involved with the Defendant, he was sent to a clinic until law enforcement intervened. Dr. Moore indicated that the Defendant’s pornography use reflected intimacy deficits and suggested he had a sexual disorder concerning prepubescent children. A standardized risk assessment indicated a "moderate low" recidivism risk, although Dr. Moore cautioned that this may underestimate his risk due to a lack of formal charges in Pennsylvania. Dr. Moore observed a lack of empathy in the Defendant and noted his tendency to attribute his behavior to pornography, indicating limited self-awareness.
Dr. Moore acknowledged during cross-examination that the Defendant was honest about his sexual activities with the victim and others, and suggested his self-reporting in Tennessee indicated an awareness of his issues. She criticized previous treatment efforts by the Defendant's parents as inadequate and noted that the treatment he received in Montana failed to specifically address his sexual deviancy. While she did not express a preference for jail over probation, she emphasized that the Defendant's risk of reoffending could be significantly reduced with appropriate treatment, and that he could be monitored outside of incarceration since his risk level did not necessitate inpatient care.
Dr. Allister Finlayson, a psychiatrist, testified after evaluating the Defendant, diagnosing him with a sexual disorder and paraphilia related to incest, but not pedophilia, as testing indicated he was not attracted to children. Finlayson assessed the Defendant's risk of reoffending as "moderate low," similar to Dr. Moore's findings, and noted the Defendant's acknowledgment of his offenses as a positive sign, though he lacked empathy for the victim. Finlayson recommended intensive sex offender treatment, which the Defendant initially expressed willingness to pursue but later hesitated. He attended some Sexaholics Anonymous meetings but did not fully engage in the process. Finlayson believed the Defendant could avoid reoffending with the necessary pressure to enter treatment and suggested ongoing monitoring.
Wanda Daniels, the foster mother of the victim, testified about the victim's ongoing struggles stemming from the abuse, including bullying and inappropriate behavior, despite some treatment. The victim, now eleven, expressed a desire to see her father but had difficulties with her mother. The Defendant, aged twenty at sentencing, recounted his background, including his adoption and feelings of resentment towards the victim, which coincided with his increasing engagement with pornography and eventual abuse of her due to stress from his parents' absence.
At sentencing, the Defendant acknowledged his selfishness and expressed regret for his actions, although he initially did not recognize their wrongdoing. He later disclosed to his sister Koli that he had abused the victim, prompting Koli to inform their mother, who then alerted authorities and implemented a safety plan to separate the Defendant from the victim. The Defendant began counseling, though it was not specifically focused on his sexual offenses. His counselor and parents communicated the wrongfulness of his actions, but this did not significantly affect him at the time.
Despite his involvement in structured activities like Catholic school and the Boy Scouts, where he achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, the Defendant engaged in consensual sex with another Boy Scout. After moving to Tennessee in June 2007, he felt isolated and bored, which led to a relapse and abuse of the victim on three separate occasions. These incidents escalated in severity, culminating in an attempt to penetrate the victim. The Defendant claimed he never used physical force and felt guilt after the first two incidents, but after the third, he communicated his actions to Ms. Skuba and his former counselor.
Following these admissions, the Defendant was sent to a clinic in Montana for four months, where he recognized his problems and began to view his sister as a potential victim. On April 22, 2008, he returned to Tennessee, hired an attorney, and turned himself in to the police. After being released on bond, he continued therapy and was evaluated by Dr. Moore. He expressed a desire for treatment to understand his sexual desires and prevent future abuse, stating he had committed no illegal acts since his release and was open to strict monitoring conditions to avoid prison. During cross-examination, the Defendant admitted to attending sexual addiction (SA) sessions inconsistently due to their early scheduling.
The Defendant admitted to directing the victim to perform fellatio in Pennsylvania and during an initial abuse incident in Tennessee, as well as making the victim watch pornography in Pennsylvania. He testified to engaging in various sexual acts, including webcam masturbation and meeting strangers for sexual encounters. The victim reported being abused three or four times in Pennsylvania, which conflicted with the Defendant’s earlier claim of ten instances made to Dr. Moore, citing discomfort as the reason for the discrepancy. The Defendant acknowledged having anger issues and being perceived as a bully by Ryan and the victim.
Character witnesses, including the Defendant's sister Katelyn and coworker Jamie Lester, characterized him as loving and compassionate, advocating for his treatment. The trial court reviewed various materials, including letters of support, the Defendant's presentence report, and evaluations from Dr. Moore and Dr. Finlayson, before deciding on a full sentence of confinement. The Defendant now appeals, arguing the trial court erred by not imposing a split confinement sentence. At sentencing, the presentence report indicated the Defendant was a 20-year-old with no prior record, a high school graduate, and had worked various jobs. He reported good mental health but was medicated for ADHD.
On appeal, the burden lies with the party challenging the sentencing, requiring them to prove the sentence was erroneous. The appellate court is tasked with a de novo review, presuming the trial court's decisions are correct unless it is shown that the court did not consider relevant sentencing principles and circumstances.
If a trial court does not adequately consider sentencing principles and relevant facts, appellate review of the sentence occurs de novo, with no presumption of correctness. In such cases, the appellate court evaluates: (a) evidence from the trial and sentencing hearing, (b) the presentence report, (c) sentencing principles and alternative sentencing arguments, (d) the nature of the crime, (e) enhancement and mitigating factors per Tennessee law, (f) statistical sentencing practices in Tennessee, and (g) any statements from the defendant regarding sentencing.
Tennessee law, amended in 2005, removed the presumption that certain felony offenders are suitable for alternative sentencing, instead requiring consideration of specific criteria. A defendant may be considered for alternative sentencing if they lack a significant criminal history, have not failed prior rehabilitation efforts, and are classified as an especially mitigated or standard offender for Class C, D, or E felonies. Courts must weigh "evidence to the contrary" that justifies confinement, which includes considerations of public safety, the seriousness of the offense, and the efficacy of prior non-confinement measures.
Sentencing should reflect the seriousness of the offense and be the least severe necessary to fulfill its purpose, while also considering the defendant's potential for rehabilitation. In this case, the trial court reviewed the presentence report, medical documentation, and support letters, taking into account the principles of sentencing and arguments from both sides. The court noted the defendant's lack of a criminal record apart from the abuse of the victim but emphasized that the abusive behavior persisted despite the defendant's exposure to structured environments like a Catholic school and the Boy Scouts.
The trial court found the Defendant's attendance at sex offender treatment meetings insufficient and noted his broader sexual deviancy. It observed a lack of genuine remorse or empathy from the Defendant, who attributed his actions to boredom and depression rather than acknowledging a selfish interest in his behavior. The court noted that the Defendant's primary motivation for seeking treatment appeared to be to evade incarceration. At sentencing, the Defendant denied previous abuse of the victim, contradicting expert reports. The court emphasized the severe and lasting impact of the Defendant's offenses on both the victim and his family, asserting that rape of a child is one of the most serious crimes, second only to murder.
Citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-103, the court deemed split confinement inappropriate to deter similar offenses and to reflect the seriousness of the crimes, concluding the Defendant posed a societal risk. It ordered the Defendant's transfer to a specialized treatment program within a correctional facility. On appeal, the Defendant criticized the trial court for not adequately applying certain mitigating and enhancement factors. While the court acknowledged the Defendant’s mental health history as a mitigating factor, it did not apply any enhancement factors.
The trial court correctly considered the relevant factors in deciding the manner of service for the sentence and was not required to specifically address the Defendant's youthful lack of judgment as a mitigating factor. It determined that confinement was necessary for deterrence and to address the Defendant’s lack of amenability to treatment outside of incarceration. Although the Defendant pointed out the absence of medical evidence regarding the victim's trauma, non-medical testimony was presented. Despite expert assessments indicating a "moderate low" risk of reoffending with treatment, the court maintained that the Defendant remained a risk while outside of confinement. Ultimately, the court affirmed its decision, concluding that the Defendant did not demonstrate sufficient grounds for alternative sentencing.
