State of Tennessee v. Deann Anelia Walls, M2016-01121-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Deann Walls pled guilty to 19 counts of prescription medication fraud and 36 counts of identity theft (Class D felonies) and received an effective ten-year sentence; the manner of service was left to the trial court.
Evidence at sentencing established Walls, a hospice nurse, diverted large quantities of opioid medications from vulnerable hospice patients (including Martha Hill), substituted other pills, and caused a patient to be without pain medication for about a month.
Investigations and admissions revealed fraudulent prescriptions in patients’ names, thousands of pills diverted over an 8–10 month span, and prior disciplinary findings including Walls’ voluntary surrender of her nursing license after similar allegations dating back to 2011–2012.
Walls admitted taking medication for her addiction, acknowledged some diversions in a written statement, and had completed an outpatient treatment program while on probation in a related Franklin County case.
The trial court denied alternative (probationary) sentencing, finding multiple enhancement factors: multiple victims, particularly vulnerable victims, high risk to human life, and abuse of professional trust; it concluded confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating the offense and to deter others.

Issue	State's Argument	Walls' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering confinement rather than alternative sentencing	Trial court properly considered sentencing factors, enhancement factors, Defendant’s prolonged misconduct, and deterrence needs; within-range sentence entitled to presumption of reasonableness	Walls argued confinement was excessive and that circumstances were not sufficiently "horrifying" or unique to override presumption favoring alternative sentencing for Class D offender	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court properly applied Sentencing Act and statutory factors and found confinement appropriate

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (clarifies application of abuse-of-discretion standard to probation/alternative-sentence decisions)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (explains advisory nature of alternative-sentencing presumption for certain offenders)
State v. Davis, 940 S.W.2d 558 (Tenn. 1997) (no absolute right to probation)
State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (discussion of when incarceration is required to avoid depreciating seriousness of offense)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (deterrence alone can justify incarceration if record supports community need and defendant will serve as rational deterrent)
State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2014) (rejects heightened review where denial of probation is based on multiple factors rather than solely on one factor)