State of Tennessee v. George Martin Zickefoose, E2016-01845-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant George Martin Zickefoose pleaded guilty to three Class D felonies (vandalism, theft, burglary) arising from the December 2015 burglary and extensive vandalism of Porter Elementary School.
Parties stipulated Range I, standard offender; sentencing range two to four years per count; trial court to determine length and manner of service.
Restitution stipulated at $8,494.56 (vandalism) and $5,185.00 (burglary); some stolen property was recovered with the defendant’s assistance.
At sentencing the State introduced the presentence report and prior misdemeanor convictions/violations; defendant admitted guilt, expressed remorse, sought split confinement to enter treatment.
Trial court found enhancement factors (previous criminal behavior; amount/extent of damage; failure to comply with prior community release), one mitigating factor (assisted authorities), denied the mitigating factor that no serious bodily injury was threatened, and sentenced defendant to the maximum within range: four years in the Tennessee Department of Correction, concurrent on counts.
Defendant appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and the court erred in denying alternative (split) confinement.

Issue	Defendant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the within‑range four‑year sentence is excessive	Zickefoose: sentence excessive; court should apply mitigating factor that offenses did not cause or threaten serious bodily injury to reduce sentence	State: sentence within range and supported by enhancement factors, defendant’s history, and sentencing principles	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; within‑range sentence presumptively reasonable and supported by record
Whether trial court erred by denying split confinement / probation	Zickefoose: suitable for split confinement to enter treatment; eligible for probation	State: confinement appropriate given defendant’s criminal history and unsuccessful prior community measures	Affirmed — trial court properly relied on need to protect society, deterrence, and prior unsuccessful alternatives

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review of sentencing uses abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentences)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for properly imposed within‑range sentences)
State v. Shaffer, 45 S.W.3d 553 (Tenn. 2001) (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (defendant bears burden to show sentence improper)
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (probation must serve interests of justice and public; defendant bears burden to show suitability)
State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (defendant bears burden to show suitability for probation)