State of Tennessee v. Jeffery Gordon Layhew, M2016-00725-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Jeffrey Layhew pled guilty to two Class A misdemeanors: leaving the scene of an accident (Dec. 2014) and DUI (Apr. 2015). Sentences: 11 months, 29 days each, ordered to be served at 100% and to run consecutively for an effective 2-year term.
The accident injured bicyclist Floyd Cassista, who suffered serious injuries (broken ribs, brain injury, ear loss) and lost income; victim urged maximum sentence and restitution for ambulance bill and lost earnings.
While on bail in the accident case, Layhew was arrested multiple times for DUI and twice cut off his SCRAM alcohol monitor; bond was later revoked.
At sentencing the judge found recent repeated misconduct and temperament concerns, imposed maximum sentences consecutively, set 100% service, and directed the probation officer to obtain documentation for restitution but did not set a specific restitution amount or timeframe.
On appeal both parties agreed the trial court erred by failing to: (1) make statutory findings supporting consecutive sentencing and (2) set a specific restitution amount; the State asked for remand for resentencing.

Issue	State's Argument	Layhew's Argument	Held
Whether maximum misdemeanor sentences were improper	Agreed trial court erred in some sentencing procedures but did not contest maximums	Challenged imposition of maximum sentences (length and 100% service)	Court upheld maximum lengths as within discretion given defendant's recent conduct and risk to public
Whether consecutive sentences were authorized without statutory findings	Argued remand required because trial court failed to announce which T.C.A. § 40-35-115(b) factor supported consecutive terms	Contended consecutive maximum sentences were improper and court failed to make required findings	Court vacated sentences and remanded for resentencing because trial court did not state findings supporting consecutive sentences
Whether restitution was sufficiently fixed	State conceded error and agreed specific amount/timeframe needed	Argued trial court erred by not fixing a specific restitution amount and timeframe	Court remanded for resentencing and ordered trial judge to set a specific restitution amount and repayment schedule

State v. Palmer, 902 S.W.2d 391 (Tenn. 1995) (trial court must impose specific misdemeanor sentence consistent with sentencing statutes)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness for sentencing)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review applies to probation and alternative sentences)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2013) (appellate review of sentencing under abuse of discretion)
State v. Johnson, 15 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 1999) (broad latitude afforded misdemeanor sentencing)
State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271 (Tenn. 1998) (discussion of trial court discretion in misdemeanor sentencing)
State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285 (Tenn. 1978) (factors a trial court should consider in granting or denying probation)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (burden on appellant to show sentence is erroneous)