State of Tennessee v. Anita Marie Strickland, E2015-02195-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Anita Strickland pled guilty to second-degree murder for shooting her husband; sentencing was left to the trial court.
Shooting occurred in the garage area; victim found dead with a gunshot wound to the neck; only one bullet recovered.
Defendant initially denied involvement but later admitted to investigators she retrieved a handgun, fired while running, disposed of the gun, and later discovered the body and called 911.
Defense presented testimony of longstanding physical and verbal abuse by the victim and expert testimony diagnosing the defendant with major depressive disorder and PTSD.
Trial court applied three enhancement factors ((5) exceptional cruelty, (9) use of a firearm, (14) abuse of private trust) and one mitigating factor (8) mental condition; imposed a 21-year sentence (range 15–25 years).
On appeal the defendant challenged the application/weight of enhancement factors (5) and (14) and sought application of mitigating factor (2) (strong provocation); the court reviewed for abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enhancement factor (14) (abuse of private trust) properly applied	State: relationship supported application	Strickland: marriage was estranged; no private-trust relationship existed	Court: factor (14) improperly applied; record didn’t show trust element
Whether enhancement factor (5) (exceptional cruelty) properly applied	State: leaving wounded victim, disposing weapon, washing clothes, delaying aid shows cruelty	Strickland: no evidence of prolonged suffering beyond fatal gunshot	Court: factor (5) improperly applied due to lack of medical/forensic proof victim suffered prolonged pain
Whether mitigating factor (2) (strong provocation) should apply	Strickland: long-term abuse and threats constitute strong provocation on day of offense	State: trial court found defendant not credible about contemporaneous provocation	Court: trial court’s credibility finding upheld; factor (2) denied
Whether overall 21-year sentence is excessive	State: sentence within range and supported by valid considerations including firearm use and mental mitigation	Strickland: misapplied enhancements make sentence excessive	Court: affirm 21-year within-range sentence; misapplied enhancements did not require reversal because other sentencing reasons and factor (9) and (8) support sentence

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences and abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (misapplication of factors undermines presumption when court departs from Sentencing Act)
State v. Gutierrez, 5 S.W.3d 641 (Tenn. 1999) (limits on applying private-trust enhancement; must assess nature of relationship)
State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250 (Tenn. 2001) (exceptional cruelty requires pain/suffering beyond that inherent in the offense)
State v. Poole, 945 S.W.2d 93 (Tenn. 1997) (upholding exceptional-cruelty enhancement where victim was left bleeding and unlikely to be discovered, causing prolonged suffering)