State of Tennessee v. Hayden Daniel Rutherford
M2016-00014-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 13, 2016Background
- Defendant (age 18) pleaded guilty to one count of robbery (Class C felony) in exchange for a six-year sentence; manner of service left to the trial court.
- Facts: defendant and three co-defendants lured victim from a party, held him at gunpoint, bound him with duct tape, forced him into a car trunk, drove to a remote location, beat him (including use of a tire iron), rifled his pockets / removed shoes, and left him barely conscious in the woods.
- Presentence report showed extensive juvenile adjudications since age 12, drug use and sales, threats via text/Facebook while awaiting sentencing, music/videos glorifying drugs/violence, unstable home/employment history.
- Trial court denied judicial diversion after weighing Parker factors and found defendant the planner/leader, with long history of misconduct, ongoing illegal behavior, poor attitude toward authority, and home instability.
- Trial court also sentenced defendant to serve the full six years in confinement, finding confinement necessary to protect society, avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense, and because less-restrictive measures had been applied unsuccessfully.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rutherford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying judicial diversion | Denial proper: defendant not amenable to correction given juvenile history, ongoing drug use, threats, leadership role in violent offense, and poor social supports | Trial court should have granted judicial diversion given defendant's youth, remorse, and mother's support | Denial affirmed — substantial evidence supported trial court's Parker-factor findings and reasoning |
| Whether trial court erred by ordering entire six-year sentence served in confinement (denying probation/alternatives) | Confinement appropriate: defendant ineligible for Community Corrections; confinement needed to protect society, avoid depreciating seriousness, and because less-restrictive measures previously failed | Defendant argued for alternative sentencing/probation or partial confinement | Affirmed — trial court properly applied statutory confinement considerations (40-35-103(1)); facts justified full confinement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (adopted abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
- State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (Parker factors govern judicial diversion; Bise standard applies to diversion review)
- State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (Bise standard applies to probation/alternative-sentencing review)
- State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (enumerated factors courts must consider for judicial diversion)
- Electroplating, Inc. v. ???, 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (trial courts must place reasons for diversion rulings on the record)
- State v. Mounger, 7 S.W.3d 70 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant traditionally bears burden to show suitability for full probation)
- State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (full probation should subserve ends of justice and interests of public and defendant)
- Hooper v. State, 297 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1956) (historical standards on probation; later referenced in Dykes)