State of Tennessee v. Gary Robert Buchanan, M2016-01872-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Gary Robert Buchanan pled guilty to aggravated assault (May 2015) and theft over $1,000 (July 2015); both were initially placed into community corrections with requirements to reside in a recovery house and participate in treatment.
Buchanan repeatedly violated community corrections: left recovery houses, removed monitoring devices, tested positive for cocaine, used alcohol, missed counseling, and was arrested for vehicle theft and related offenses; warrants and violations led to multiple revocations and reinstatements.
After one violation, the trial court resentenced Buchanan to the maximum in-range terms: 6 years for aggravated assault and 8 years for theft, ordered to run consecutively for an effective 14-year sentence.
At resentencing the court applied enhancement factors including prior convictions and prior failure to comply with community release; it declined to find mitigating weight in Buchanan’s mental-health, addiction, and remorse evidence.
Buchanan appealed, arguing improper application of one enhancement factor, omission of three mitigating factors, and that the aggregate consecutive sentence was excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Buchanan)	Held
Validity of enhancement factors for length of sentences	Trial court properly applied enhancement factors (prior convictions; prior failure to comply; was on community release/probation) to justify within-range maximums	One enhancement (that he was on probation when assault occurred) was misapplied; court should have credited mitigating factors (mental illness, addiction, remorse)	Court found remaining enhancement factors sufficient; trial court’s discretionary weighing of mitigation was proper; no abuse of discretion in six- and eight-year sentences.
Application of mitigating factors	Court considered but gave little or no weight to mental health, addiction, and claimed remorse based on record	These factors should have reduced sentences or mitigated culpability	Court held trial court reasonably declined to give them significant weight; discretionary and affirmed.
Consecutive sentencing authority	Consecutive sentences appropriate based on defendant’s extensive criminal record and other factors	Consecutive aggregate 14-year sentence is excessive and some relied-upon consecutive factor (on probation when theft committed) was improper	One valid consecutive sentencing factor (extensive record) was present; erroneous reliance on probation did not invalidate consecutive sentence; affirmed.
Whether 14-year aggregate sentence was excessive / least restrictive	Sentence within statutory range and consistent with sentencing purposes; trial court followed statutory considerations	Aggregate sentence greater than deserved; not least severe necessary	Court found sentence not excessive and within discretion; affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes deferential review and presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentencing decisions)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (applies Bise standard to consecutive sentencing review)
State v. Mickens, 123 S.W.3d 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003) (only one statutory factor needed to support consecutive sentences)
State v. Pettus, 986 S.W.2d 540 (Tenn. 1999) (community corrections is not equivalent to probation for purposes of consecutive sentencing statute)