State of Tennessee v. Austin Dean
E2015-01217-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Defendant Austin Dean (age 21 at sentencing) pleaded guilty to 11 aggravated robbery counts; several counts were merged and the trial court would determine length and manner of service.
- Factual basis: two laundromat robberies (March 17 and March 19, 2014) where Dean, with a codefendant, displayed a BB gun, demanded and took victims’ property; one victim was struck by the codefendant; victims reported trauma and psychological effects.
- Dean admitted the robberies, waived rights, and acknowledged he was on probation and participating in drug court when the offenses occurred; he had an extensive prior nonviolent criminal history and prior revocations of diversion/probation.
- Trial court found applicable enhancement (criminal history, probation at time of offenses) and limited mitigation (confession but remorse viewed as the result of being caught) and imposed three concurrent eight-year, within-range sentences with partial consecutive service (two counts consecutive) for an effective 16-year sentence at 85%.
- Dean moved to reduce sentence; motion denied. He appealed, arguing the partial consecutive service produced an excessive, disproportionate sentence compared with his codefendant’s negotiated concurrent 20-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering partial consecutive service (resulting in a 16-year effective sentence) | State: sentencing court properly considered sentencing principles, criminal history, probation status, victims’ harm, and did not abuse discretion in imposing partial consecutive sentences | Dean: consecutive service produces an excessive sentence not justified by offense seriousness, not the least severe measure, and is disproportionate to codefendant’s concurrent 20-year sentence | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse its discretion; partial consecutive sentences appropriate given probation status, criminal history, victims’ impact, and offense circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing with presumption of reasonableness)
- State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (trial court’s broad discretion on consecutive sentencing)
- State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (factors to be considered at sentencing)
- State v. Desirey, 909 S.W.2d 20 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (consecutive sentences must be no greater than deserved and the least severe necessary)
- State v. Biggs, 482 S.W.3d 923 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2015) (partial consecutive service reversed where aggregate sentence was disproportionate to offenses and offender)