State of Tennessee v. Bridget Bondurant Shirer
M2015-01486-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- Bridget Bondurant Shirer pleaded open guilty to multiple counts: five aggravated burglaries (Class C), seven thefts ($1,000–$10,000, Class D), one failure to appear (Class D), and one forgery (≤ $500, Class E); several other counts were dismissed.
- The offenses occurred October 2013–May 2014; many thefts involved pawning or melting jewelry taken from relatives and acquaintances.
- Shirer attributed her crimes to a severe prescription painkiller addiction; she later completed inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation and reported sobriety since June 2014.
- At sentencing, the trial court applied enhancement factors (notably abuse of private trust and prior criminal behavior via repeated conduct), one statutory mitigating factor (no threatened serious bodily injury), and ordered concurrent sentences within groups but consecutive service between groups, producing an effective 14-year sentence: 8 years in confinement followed by 6 years on community corrections.
- The court denied full alternative sentencing largely because Shirer submitted a fake doctor’s excuse to avoid court while on bond and while on probation in another county, finding that this attempted fraud, need for deterrence, and depreciation-of-seriousness concerns justified confinement.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the sentence as not an abuse of discretion but remanded for clerical corrections to several judgments reflecting dismissed counts and a clerical case-number error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the length of the effective 14-year sentence is excessive | Shirer: addiction, nonviolent property offenses, successful rehab, lack of prior record, remorse and efforts to retrieve pawned items warrant more mitigation and shorter sentence | State: trial court properly weighed factors; enhancement factors apply; deterrence and court fraud justify sentence | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; sentence within ranges and properly supported |
| Whether Shirer was entitled to mitigating credit for addiction | Shirer: addiction significantly reduced culpability | State: voluntary intoxication/addiction is excluded; addiction after prolonged offending without earlier treatment is not mitigating | Affirmed — addiction not an applicable mitigating factor under §40-35-113(8) in these circumstances |
| Whether alternative sentencing should have been granted (probation/community alternatives) | Shirer: eligible as standard offender for Class C–E felonies and a good candidate for alternative sentencing | State: confinement necessary to avoid depreciating seriousness, for deterrence, and because defendant attempted fraud on the court and had prior diversion/probation | Affirmed — trial court permissibly denied full alternative sentencing and ordered a split (confinement then community corrections) |
| Whether judgments require correction for clerical errors about dismissed counts and case numbers | Shirer: judgments should reflect plea agreements and dismissals | State: agrees clerical errors exist | Remanded — judgments corrected to reflect dismissed counts and correct case number |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion presumption and standard for appellate review of sentencing)
- State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (application of Bise standard to consecutive sentencing)
- State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (application of Bise standard to alternative sentencing)
- State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (factors to be considered in sentencing)
- State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (trial court discretion in weighing enhancement and mitigating factors)
- State v. Williams, 920 S.W.2d 247 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (lack of prior criminal record is discretionary as mitigating factor)
- State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (standards for alternative sentencing suitability)
- State v. McKnight, 900 S.W.2d 36 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (when repeated offenses may be used as prior criminal behavior for enhancement)
