State of Tennessee v. James A. Kilgore, M2016-02393-CCA-R3-CD

James A. Kilgore pled guilty to attempted conspiracy to manufacture >300 grams of methamphetamine (Class B) and attempted initiation of a process to manufacture methamphetamine (Class C) in exchange for aggregate consecutive sentences of 10 years and 5 years; the 5-year term to be served on supervised probation and the trial court to determine manner of service for the 10-year term.
Investigation revealed a meth lab in an outbuilding on a South Pittsburg property, extensive pseudoephedrine purchases by multiple co-defendants, finished methamphetamine and lab equipment, and small children living/playing in close proximity to the lab.
Presentence report and detective testimony established Kilgore purchased significant pseudoephedrine, was photographed carrying lab-related items, and had a history of drug use.
Kilgore presented testimony of stable recent employment, family support, compliance while on bond (drug screens with inconclusive results), remorse, and separation from co-defendants.
The trial court ordered the 10-year term to be served in confinement; Kilgore appealed, arguing the court failed to consider all alternative sentencing options and improperly limited its analysis to full probation.

Issue	State's Argument	Kilgore's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the 10-year sentence to be served in confinement instead of an alternative sentence	Trial court properly considered sentencing factors, Kilgore's criminal history, risk to public (children exposed to meth lab), prior failed probations, and concluded confinement appropriate	Trial court failed to consider all sentencing alternatives and evaluated only full probation rather than community corrections or other alternatives	Affirmed: trial court engaged in a thorough, case-specific analysis, properly considered statutory factors, and did not abuse its discretion in imposing confinement

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (within-range sentencing decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to questions about probation and alternative sentences)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (defendant no longer presumed favorable candidate for alternative sentencing)
State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. 1997) (burden on defendant to show suitability for probation)
State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (defendant must demonstrate probation is appropriate)
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (probation must subserve ends of justice and interests of public and defendant)
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (probation considerations and public interest)
State v. Davis, 940 S.W.2d 558 (Tenn. 1997) (probation should not unduly depreciate seriousness of offense)