State of Tennessee v. Brandon Frost, M2015-02283-CCA-R3-CD

On May 26, 2014 Brandon Frost entered the back seat of a parked car occupied by Dale and Janet Lature, held them at knifepoint, ordered them to drive, and demanded money. Mrs. Lature surrendered about $60 from her purse.
Frost directed the couple to stop in a residential area, exited the vehicle, apologized, and fled. The victims later identified Frost from a photo and in court; police recovered a t-shirt matching the victims’ description from his room.
Frost told roommates he had stolen a knife and robbed an older couple and showed cash; one roommate reported this to police. Frost later called the victims to apologize.
A jury convicted Frost of two counts of aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated robbery (victim Mrs. Lature), and one count of attempted aggravated robbery (victim Mr. Lature). The trial court imposed an effective ten-year sentence.
On appeal Frost challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence (that he demanded money from Mr. Lature and that confinement was incidental to robbery), (2) sentencing (failure to apply mitigating factors), and (3) denial of alternative sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Frost)	Held
Sufficiency — aggravated kidnapping	Evidence shows removal/confinement plus use/display of a deadly weapon; victims were not free to leave	Confinement was merely incidental to robbery and thus cannot support separate kidnapping convictions	Conviction affirmed: jury properly instructed under White; detention exceeded that necessary for robbery
Sufficiency — attempted aggravated robbery (Mr. Lature)	Appellant directed demands at both victims; Mr. Lature testified he was asked about money	Frost argued he did not demand money from Mr. Lature	Conviction affirmed: testimony supported attempt to rob Mr. Lature
Sentencing — mitigation	Frost urged multiple mitigating factors (provocation, necessity, youth, lack of sustained intent, lack of record) and voluntary release should reduce sentences	Trial court applied only youth (lack of substantial judgment) and gave little weight to voluntary release	No abuse of discretion: trial court considered factors and permissibly weighed them
Alternative sentencing	Frost argued for probation/community corrections/split confinement with treatment	State argued confinement appropriate given offense seriousness and Frost’s history/failure of prior rehab	Denial of alternative sentencing affirmed: trial court found poor rehabilitative potential and prior unsuccessful interventions justified confinement

State v. Anthony, 817 S.W.2d 299 (Tenn. 1991) (established prior “essentially incidental” rule for kidnapping convictions accompanying other felonies)
State v. Dixon, 957 S.W.2d 532 (Tenn. 1997) (refined Anthony into two-prong test for incidental movement/confinement)
State v. White, 362 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. 2012) (overruled Anthony/Dixon test; held sufficiency review of statutory kidnapping elements under proper jury instruction protects due process)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for appellate sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for sentencing — abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness)