State of Tennessee v. Brandon Depriest Fuller, Jr., W2016-00456-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Brandon D. Fuller was convicted by a jury of reckless aggravated assault (Class D felony) for an unprovoked attack on his mother's then‑boyfriend that resulted in serious, potentially permanent injuries (head trauma, broken kneecap, nerve damage, speech issues).
Incident facts: defendant struck and "ground‑and‑pounded" the victim, then kicked him while wearing steel‑toed boots; defendant admitted to martial‑arts training and initially lied to police claiming two strangers attacked the victim.
Victim required multiple surgeries and ongoing treatment; medical bills at sentencing exceeded $12,000.
At sentencing the trial court denied the defendant's request for judicial diversion and sentenced him to a mid‑range three‑year term in the Department of Correction, finding factors (severity of injury, cruelty, dishonesty, anger issues, lack of remorse) weighed against diversion or alternative sentencing.
Defendant appealed arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion and ordering confinement. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Fuller)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying judicial diversion	The trial court properly weighed Electroplating/Parker factors and denial was supported by seriousness of offense, cruelty, deterrence, untruthfulness, and lack of remorse	Fuller argued eligibility and mitigating factors (young age, no record) warranted diversion	Affirmed — trial court considered relevant factors; substantial evidence supports denial
Whether confinement was improperly imposed instead of alternative sentence	Confinement appropriate because probation would depreciate seriousness given injury, cruelty, dishonesty, anger issues	Fuller argued he was a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing (Range I, no prior record)	Affirmed — court properly found confinement justified after weighing statutory factors

State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. 1996) (eligibility for judicial diversion does not entitle defendant to diversion)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review of sentencing and diversion decisions under a presumption of reasonableness when trial court identifies and considers relevant factors)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (clarifies application of Parker and Electroplating factors and presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (lists factors courts should consider when deciding judicial diversion)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (defendant no longer presumptively favorable for alternative sentencing under revised statutes)