State of Tennessee v. Amanda Kay Profitt, E2012-00373-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Amanda Profitt pled guilty to four counts of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and one count of willful abuse/neglect/exploitation of an adult.
Trial court sentenced Profitt to three years for the four fraud counts and two years for the abuse count, to run concurrently, for an effective three-year sentence.
At the guilty-plea, the State set forth facts of diversion of morphine at Holston Manor Nursing Home and testing showed no morphine in patients’ urine or in bottles allegedly used.
Defendant admitted diverting drugs for personal use and that she used IV drugs, with track marks observed by investigators.
Profitt sought judicial diversion and later challenged the trial court’s denial of judicial diversion and alternative sentencing/probation on appeal.
Trial court denied both judicial diversion and probation, imposing confinement throughout.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of judicial diversion was proper	Profitt argues factors were not properly weighed.	Profitt contends discretion should favor diversion given rehabilitation and lack of prior felonies.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Whether the denial of alternative sentencing/probation was proper	State argues record supports confinement given offense seriousness.	Profitt asserts rehabilitation and remorse warrant probation.	Yes; denial of probation/alternative sentencing affirmed.

State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (diversion factors; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Bonestal, 871 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (diversion denial requires explanation of factors)
State v. Holland, 661 S.W.2d 91 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) (diversion guidelines and discretion)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (post-2005 sentencing reform; probation presumptions)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard on sentencing)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentences)