State of Tennessee v. Edward Nolan Lee Thomas, M2017-00040-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Edward Nolan Lee Thomas pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary and theft (<$500); agreed sentences: 4 years (burglary) and 11 months/29 days (theft), trial court to decide manner of service.
State’s factual proffer: forced-entry burglary of residence with stolen firearms, electronics and ammunition (victim valued items >$3,500); separate incident: theft from a shed (~$130) with Defendant admitting taking items.
Victims testified to significant emotional impact and altered living/working arrangements; one victim requested confinement for the Defendant.
Defendant admitted drug use and dependence, described decline after family losses, expressed remorse and participation in outpatient treatment; mother testified to family support and housing if released.
Trial court denied judicial diversion, found seriousness of offenses and victims’ fear outweighed mitigating factors, ordered concurrent confinement at CCA workhouse and drug rehabilitation while incarcerated; appeal followed.

Issue	State's Argument	Thomas's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying judicial diversion under Tenn. Code Ann. §40-35-313	Trial court properly considered Parker/Electroplating factors (seriousness, victims' impact, defendant's drug use and support) and denial is reasonable	Trial court failed to address required factors adequately; Thomas was a good candidate and no exceptional circumstances justified denial	Affirmed—trial court considered relevant factors and substantial evidence supports denial of judicial diversion
Whether trial court erred by ordering continuous confinement (manner of service)	Confinement warranted to avoid depreciating seriousness of offenses and to provide treatment; within discretion	Confinement improper because statutory confinement factors (long criminal history, prior unsuccessful alternatives) don't apply	Affirmed—within-range sentence and record support confinement under T.C.A. §40-35-103(B); no abuse of discretion

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) (applies Bise standard to manner of service/probation decisions)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (trial court must reflect consideration of diversion factors to obtain presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (lists factors relevant to judicial diversion eligibility and consideration)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (addresses limits of diversion eligibility doctrine)
State v. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d 163 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993) (eligibility for diversion does not entitle defendant to diversion)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard in sentencing review)