State of Tennessee v. Jason Erik Redden, E2016-00998-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Jason Erik Redden, former Graysville police chief, pleaded guilty to two counts of official misconduct (Class E felonies) with an agreed effective sentence of two years; trial court to determine manner of service.
Offenses arose from mishandling of seized property: $3,977 in seized cash that was misplaced/borrowed against and multiple seized vehicles allegedly sold or returned without proper procedure.
Evidence at sentencing: TBI agent investigation, testimony from buyer Robert Baldwin, former officers, and family; video showing Redden taking a toolbox from a towed truck; inconsistent explanations from Redden about where funds and property went.
Redden and his wife testified about significant family hardship (seriously ill child) and his role as primary caregiver and student; presentence report showed no felony record but prior disciplinary incidents while with Chattanooga PD.
Trial court denied judicial diversion (finding abuse of public trust, lack of candor, questionable amenability to correction) and denied alternative sentencing, ordering confinement to avoid depreciating seriousness of the offenses and to deter police corruption.
On appeal Redden argued the court erred in (1) denying judicial diversion because he was not an "elected or appointed person" disqualifying him, and (2) denying alternative sentencing by misapplying factors and enhancements.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Redden)	Held
Denial of judicial diversion — qualification	Court should find Redden disqualified because chief of police is an appointed public official, barring diversion	Redden argued he was an at‑will city employee (not an elected/appointed official) and thus statutorily eligible for diversion; also argued court failed to articulate required factor analysis	Affirmed: Although the court erred in relying on judicial notice about appointment, any error was harmless — court properly considered Parker/Electroplating factors and denial supported by lack of truthfulness, offense gravity, and amenability concerns
Denial of alternative sentencing (probation)	Confinement necessary to avoid depreciating seriousness and deter police corruption; facts support incarceration	Redden argued confinement was excessive, court misapplied enhancement/mitigating factors, and failed to consider statutory factors (family hardship, remorse)	Affirmed: Court properly applied sentencing principles; credibility and abuse of public trust justified confinement; any erroneous reliance on enhancement factor (abuse of trust) was harmless because other valid grounds existed
Application of enhancement factor (abuse of public trust)	Court relied on public‑trust enhancement to justify sentence	Redden argued factor duplicates offense elements and cannot be used to enhance official misconduct sentence	Harmless error if applied: Court may have referenced factor but based confinement on other valid reasons; no relief granted
Consideration of release eligibility in sentencing	State noted short effective term and release rules	Redden argued court improperly considered administrative release/prosecutorial plea benefits	Court acknowledged such considerations are improper but record shows sentencing decision rested on proper factors; no reversible error

Key Cases Cited

State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review and presumption of reasonableness for appellate review of sentencing)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review framework for sentencing findings and factor weighing)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (judicial diversion: requirements for trial court to consider Parker/Electroplating factors and appellate review scope)
State v. Electroplating, 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (list of factors trial court must weigh when considering judicial diversion)
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (requirement that court articulate reasons on record when denying diversion)
State v. Nunley, 22 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (courts may not rely on facts not in evidence or not judicially noticed for sentencing)
State v. Dowdy, 894 S.W.2d 301 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (a defendant’s lack of truthfulness is a permissible basis to deny probation)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (sentencing considers nature of offense and totality of circumstances)
State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (statutory grounds permitting confinement instead of alternative sentencing)
State v. Neeley, 678 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. 1984) (truthfulness as factor in suspension/sentencing)