State of Tennessee v. Dennis Miller, M2016-02302-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Dennis Miller (no prior convictions) pleaded guilty to reckless aggravated assault (Class D felony) for shooting his cousin during a physical altercation; sentencing left to trial court.
Facts: dispute over family property; Defendant approached victim on property, struck him, they grappled over a gun in Defendant’s pocket, and the gun discharged, wounding the victim’s ankle requiring multiple surgeries and substantial medical bills.
Defendant sought judicial diversion and full probation; State conceded no adverse criminal/social history but opposed diversion/probation based on offense circumstances and deterrence.
Trial court denied diversion, found enhancement for use of a firearm and serious injury, applied mitigating weight to lack of criminal history and stable employment, and imposed a two-year sentence with 60 days confinement and the remainder on probation; restitution agreed.
On appeal, Defendant argued the trial court misapplied diversion factors, improperly relied on lawful gun possession, and abused discretion in denying full probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Miller)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion in denying judicial diversion	Denial appropriate given offense circumstances, deterrence, and public interest	Court failed to consider required Parker/Electroplating factors and improperly penalized lawful gun possession	Affirmed — court considered required factors on the record and substantial evidence supports denial
Whether denial of full probation (alternative sentencing) was abuse of discretion	Confinement needed to avoid depreciating seriousness given unprovoked assault, use of gun, severe injuries	Probation appropriate given lack of criminal history and employment; court improperly considered firearm possession	Affirmed — confinement (60 days) justified to avoid depreciating offense; firearm consideration proper because weapon use is relevant and not an element of the pleaded offense

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard: appellate presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (requirement that trial court consider/divide diversion factors; presumption of reasonableness if followed)
State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (lists factors trial court must consider for diversion)
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. 1996) (judicial diversion framework and effect of successful completion)
State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (denial of alternative sentencing based on depreciating seriousness requires offense to be especially egregious)
State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2017) (heightened review when denial of alternative sentence is based solely on depreciating seriousness)
State v. Housewright, 982 S.W.2d 354 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (burden on defendant to show probation serves ends of justice)
State v. Blackhurst, 70 S.W.3d 88 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (victim impact statements are reliable information for sentencing considerations)