Ebony Robinson pled guilty to charges including vehicular homicide by intoxication, aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and driving without a license, resulting in a ten-year sentence on probation with periodic confinement during holidays. The State appealed, asserting the trial court improperly granted probation due to Robinson's ineligibility under statutory law. After reviewing the case, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's decision and remanded for the execution of the sentence.
On August 9, 2020, Robinson struck two minors on bicycles while driving under the influence, admitting to having been on her cell phone and smelling of alcohol. Despite initially complying with field sobriety tests, she later refused to continue and became combative, leading to her being restrained. A blood test revealed her blood alcohol content was .08. One child, CM, died from injuries sustained in the incident, while the other, CD, survived but was injured. Testimony during the sentencing hearing highlighted the impact of CM's death on his family, describing him as a loving and active child.
Ms. Archibald testified about her son’s friendship with CD, describing the boys as "very close" and active in sports like skateboarding and biking. Valerie Robinson, who adopted Defendant at age eight after initially fostering her, detailed her large family of ten children, including three of Defendant’s brothers. Ms. Robinson characterized Defendant's childhood as enjoyable, noting family activities like travel and participation in a choir, alongside Defendant's involvement in basketball. She mentioned that Defendant was teased for missing two fingers on her right hand but maintained that Defendant was quiet and had no behavioral issues.
Ms. Robinson acknowledged that Defendant faced academic challenges but graduated with tutoring support. She noted Defendant's intermittent drinking and potential drug use, influenced by relationships, particularly one that increased her substance use. Defendant has two children, ages ten and six, living with relatives at the time of the hearing; she maintained a loving relationship with them. Ms. Robinson expressed hope for Defendant’s return home to improve her parenting.
The trial court inquiry revealed that Defendant typically worked via temp agencies, possibly due to marijuana-related employment laws. During her allocution, Defendant expressed remorse for the accidental death of CM, whom she considered family. The defense submitted a detailed sentencing plan, while the State presented evidence of the incident, including a toxicology report showing alcohol and marijuana in Defendant’s system. The State argued that Defendant was ineligible for probation for vehicular homicide by intoxication under Tennessee law effective January 1, 2017, while Defendant contended that split confinement sentencing was permissible in her case.
The trial court issued its findings on Defendant’s sentence after taking the matter under advisement. It entered a written order indicating consideration of the principles in T.C.A. 40-35-210(b). The court identified three enhancement factors and no mitigating factors, resulting in a ten-year sentence for vehicular homicide by intoxication, four years for aggravated assault, six months for resisting arrest, and six months for driving without a license. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently, totaling an effective ten-year sentence as a Range I offender.
The court noted Defendant's ineligibility for probation for the vehicular homicide conviction under T.C.A. 40-35-303 but indicated a conflict of laws regarding this issue, particularly referring to the case of State v. Cindy B. Hinton. The trial court ultimately concluded that while probation was not available, Defendant was eligible for alternative sentencing, which led to the suspension of her ten-year sentence to probation. Conditions included direct entry into the Hope Center for one year, successful program completion, and supervision while residing there. Additionally, Defendant was required to petition for release from the Hope Center and was sentenced to periodic jail confinement during her children's birthdays and Christmas over the next three years.
The State appealed, arguing the trial court erred in issuing a probationary sentence with periodic confinement for vehicular homicide, claiming such a sentence is prohibited by T.C.A. 40-35-303(a). In contrast, Defendant argued that a split confinement sentence is permissible when considering relevant statutes together. The standard of review for the sentencing decision is whether the trial court abused its discretion, with a presumption of reasonableness applied to within-range sentencing that adheres to the Sentencing Act. The burden lies with the party challenging the sentence to prove its impropriety.
In determining a proper sentence, the trial court must consider several factors as outlined in T.C.A. 40-35-401 (2017), including: evidence from the trial and sentencing hearing, the presentence report, sentencing principles and arguments, the nature of the crime, mitigating and enhancement factors, statistical sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee, the defendant's statements regarding sentencing, and the results of a validated risk assessment in the presentence report. The court must also evaluate the defendant's potential for rehabilitation when deciding on the sentence's alternative or length.
Legal interpretations regarding statutory construction are reviewed de novo, with the legislative intent derived from the statute's plain language in context, avoiding forced interpretations. A specific provision takes precedence over a general one in case of conflict, and statutes are generally presumed to apply prospectively unless stated otherwise by the legislature.
In this case, the defendant pled guilty to vehicular homicide by intoxication, which mandates a minimum sentence of 48 hours of incarceration without eligibility for probation until that minimum is served. However, the probation statute specifies that a defendant is not eligible for probation if convicted of certain offenses, including vehicular homicide by intoxication.
A defendant is eligible for probation under Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-36-106(e)(3), but amendments to the vehicular homicide statute have changed this eligibility. A 2015 amendment introduced mandatory minimum sentences for vehicular homicide, while a 2017 amendment specified that vehicular homicide by intoxication is ineligible for probation. The State argues, referencing State v. Stephen Jacob McKinney, that the trial court incorrectly granted a ten-year probation sentence with periodic confinement for a vehicular homicide by intoxication conviction. In McKinney, the defendant contended that the trial court erred by requiring him to serve his entire sentence in confinement, citing a provision mandating a minimum of 48 hours in custody before probation eligibility. The court ruled that the legislative intent to disqualify such defendants from probation was clear and that the two statutes could not be reconciled, leading to a conclusion that the probation statute's amendment effectively repealed conflicting provisions of the vehicular homicide statute regarding probation eligibility. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that "release from probation" equated to "release on parole," affirming that a recent statute can implicitly repeal an earlier conflicting one. Additionally, a previous case, State v. Johnny David Key, acknowledged that defendants convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication face statutory minimum jail terms, resulting in ineligibility for full probation.
A defendant convicted of vehicular homicide by intoxication is ineligible for any form of probation, including periodic or split confinement, as explicitly stated in the probation statute. This ruling aligns with the court's reasoning in Stephen Jacob McKinney and is supported by relevant statutes (T.C.A. 40-35-303(a), 40-35-306(a), 40-36-106(a)) and previous case law (State v. Smith, 910 S.W.2d 457, 462; State v. Edward Shannon Polen, No. M2012-01811-CCA-R3-CD). Consequently, the trial court erred in granting probation followed by periodic confinement for the defendant's vehicular homicide by intoxication conviction. The court reverses the trial court's decision, ordering the execution of the defendant's ten-year sentence.
