State of Tennessee v. Antwain Deshun Coleman, AKA Antwain Mackey, M2016-02334-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Antwain D. Coleman pled guilty to facilitation of aggravated robbery (Class C felony) in exchange for a six-year Range I sentence; manner of service reserved for sentencing court.
Underlying facts: taxi driver Michael Meacham was approached, threatened with handguns, and robbed of phone, wallet, cards and ID; co-defendant’s prints matched latent prints and implicated both men; victim later identified Coleman in a photo lineup with 70% assurance.
At sentencing, victim testified the robbery caused ongoing anxiety and depression and urged full punishment; Coleman apologized, described substance use and peer influence, and sought alternative sentencing to help his family and care for his child.
Presentence report showed prior convictions including aggravated robbery, felony theft, and misdemeanors; Coleman previously failed to complete probation and had lost a college scholarship due to the prior aggravated robbery.
Trial court denied alternative sentencing, citing the need to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense and to protect society given Coleman’s criminal history; court ordered incarceration but requested in-custody treatment consideration.
Coleman appealed, arguing the denial of alternative sentence (probation or community corrections) was an abuse of discretion; appeal limited as he did not develop a challenge to community corrections in his brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Coleman)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying alternative sentence	The sentence was within range and sentencing court properly considered seriousness and defendant’s record; confinement appropriate	Denial was improper; criminal record not lengthy and deterrence should not justify denying probation	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion — confinement justified to avoid depreciating seriousness and based on criminal history
Whether deterrence alone can justify denying probation	Trial court relied on statutory sentencing considerations, not solely deterrence	Coleman argued Moten bars denial based on deterrence	Moten superseded by statute; court did not rely solely on deterrence; decision stands
Whether trial court improperly considered prior record beyond plea agreement	State contended court may consider prior convictions even if plea capped at Range I	Coleman contended record insufficiently lengthy to justify confinement	Court properly considered defendant’s prior convictions and probation failure despite Range I plea; consideration permissible
Whether challenge to community corrections preserved	State noted defendant did not brief this issue	Coleman raised community corrections generally but provided no argument	Waived for lack of appellate development

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (same standard applies to alternative sentencing decisions)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (application of Bise standard to diversion and sentencing reviews)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (appellant bears burden to show sentencing impropriety)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (appellate review principles for sentencing challenges)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (explaining deterrence’s role in probation denial and statutory evolution)
State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (denial of alternative sentence may be based on avoiding depreciation of offense seriousness)
Moten v. State, 559 S.W.2d 770 (Tenn. 1977) (historical rule that deterrence alone could not deny probation; later superseded by statute)