State of Tennessee v. Guy Len Biggs, W2016-01781-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Guy Len Biggs was tried for attempted first-degree murder; jury convicted him of the lesser-included offense of attempted second-degree murder and he was sentenced to 12 years.
During that trial Biggs testified falsely about a distinguished military record and introduced a fabricated DD214.
He was later indicted and pled guilty to aggravated perjury (Class D) and fabricating evidence (Class C).
At sentencing for those convictions the trial court imposed concurrent terms of 4 years (perjury) and 5 years (fabrication), ordered to be served in confinement.
The trial court ordered the effective 5-year sentence to run consecutively to the earlier 12-year sentence, finding Biggs a "dangerous offender" and also noting Rule 32 considerations.
Biggs appealed, challenging consecutive sentencing and vaguely contending error as to sentence length and eligibility for alternative sentencing; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by ordering the new sentence consecutive to an existing 12-year sentence	State argued consecutive sentencing was proper because criteria (dangerous offender; prior unserved sentence) were met	Biggs argued the consecutive sentence was an abuse of discretion	Affirmed: trial court properly found Biggs a dangerous offender and justified consecutive sentences under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-115(b)(4) and Tenn. R. Crim. P. 32
Whether the court abused discretion in sentence length (4 and 5 years)	State: sentences are within statutory ranges and sentencing factors were considered	Biggs argued generally that length/manner were improper and that he should have been considered for alternatives	Affirmed: sentences are within range, court considered required factors, presumption of reasonableness applies
Whether Biggs was eligible for alternative or minimum sentencing / judicial diversion	State noted record supported confinement given findings (dangerous offender, low rehabilitation potential)	Biggs asserted (sparsely) he should have received alternative sentencing or diversion	Denied: defendant waived meaningful appellate argument; record supports confinement and low rehabilitation potential
Whether appellate review is impaired by incomplete record	State argued waiver/preclusion; missing plea hearing transcript limits review	Biggs did not provide plea hearing transcript	Court presumes the missing record would support sentencing; addressed merits and affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (consecutive sentence review standard)
State v. Robinson, 73 S.W.3d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (incomplete record precludes addressing issues on appeal)
State v. Keen, 996 S.W.2d 842 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (presumption that missing record supports trial court)
State v. Oody, 823 S.W.2d 554 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (same principle re: missing record)
State v. Moore, 942 S.W.2d 570 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (statutory classifications for consecutive sentences)
State v. Black, 924 S.W.2d 912 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (preponderance standard for finding statutory criteria for consecutive sentences)
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (consecutive sentences for dangerous offenders must relate to severity and protect the public)
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999) (Wilkerson requirements applied to dangerous-offender consecutive sentences)
State v. Perry, 882 S.W.2d 357 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (perjury undermines the judicial system)
Wilder v. Wilder, 863 S.W.2d 707 (Tenn. App. 1992) (perjury offensive to judicial system)