State of Tennessee v. Byron Sidney Doss, M2020-00934-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Byron Sidney Doss was convicted after a bench trial of aggravated assault by strangulation (Class C felony) and false imprisonment (Class A misdemeanor); acquitted on aggravated-assault-with-a-knife charge.
Incident (Dec. 15, 2018): victim (pregnant ex-girlfriend, ~18 weeks) was prevented from leaving the trailer, was grabbed and strangled on at least two occasions, sustained neck/eye/abrasion injuries and vaginal spotting; medical records showed petechiae and abrasions.
Victim escaped to neighbors who called police; defendant later arrested after SWAT entry; jail calls suggesting attempts to contact victim were played at trial.
Presentence evidence: defendant ~42, significant prior record (including prior assaults), on probation at time of offense; Strong-R assessment rated high risk for violence.
Trial court sentenced defendant to five years for aggravated assault (Range I), suspended to time served with five years supervised probation; concurrent 11 months, 29 days for false imprisonment; appeal challenged the five-year sentence. Judgment forms lacked completed jail-credit dates; case remanded to correct those dates.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a five-year sentence for aggravated assault by strangulation	Sentence is within statutory range, court considered trial evidence, presentence report, enhancement factors, and sentencing principles; presumption of reasonableness applies	Five-year term exceeds statistical average and is excessive; court failed to apply mitigating factors and overlooked positive testimony about defendant's character	Affirmed. Court did not abuse its discretion; five-year in-range sentence reasonable given prior convictions, probation status at offense, high-risk assessment, and sentencing analysis; judgments remanded to add jail-credit dates.

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (articulates abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for sentencing)
State v. Gomez, 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005) (discusses preservation/plain-error standards for appellate review)
State v. Fusco, 404 S.W.3d 504 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2012) (explains that misapplication or omission of enhancement/mitigating factors is not reversible if sentence otherwise complies with sentencing principles)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (deference to trial court sentencing decision even if appellate court might prefer a different result)
State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250 (Tenn. 2001) (places burden on appellant to show a sentence is improper)