State of Tennessee v. Joey Tyrone Simpson, M2016-01962-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Joey Tyrone Simpson pled guilty to aggravated assault (Class C felony) and received a Range I, standard offender sentence of three years in the Department of Correction.
Victim Piyushbai Patel testified defendant repeatedly returned to victim’s store, assaulted him with a golf club and fists, caused store damage, and incurred $2,880 in emergency medical bills.
Defendant claimed he sought unpaid compensation for prior work, denied intent to seriously injure, and described mental-health and disability issues.
Presentence report and testimony showed prior convictions including three domestic-assault convictions, a DUI with revoked probation, resisting arrest, and drug history; one domestic-assault conviction had required 90 days confinement.
Trial court found a mitigating factor (mental/physical condition) but declined other mitigators, weighed defendant’s criminal history and post-plea arrest, denied alternative sentencing, and ordered restitution.
Appellate court affirmed sentence but remanded to correct the judgment’s restitution amount (judgment incorrectly listed $2,280; correct amount $2,880).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was entitled to alternative (probationary) sentencing	State argued incarceration appropriate given violent offense, property damage, and defendant’s criminal history	Simpson argued suitability for probation based on mental/physical condition, disability, and community support	Court held trial court did not abuse discretion in denying alternative sentencing; confinement justified by prior convictions, revoked probation, and post-plea arrest
Whether judgment must be corrected to reflect proper restitution amount	State accepted trial court’s oral order of $2,880 restitution	Simpson preserved issue via appeal (challenging sentencing generally)	Court remanded for corrected judgment to reflect $2,880 restitution

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard for appellate review of sentencing; abuse-of-discretion with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (same standard applies to challenges to denial of alternative sentencing)
State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (defendant bears burden to show suitability for probation)
State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (probation is not automatic; defendant must justify probation)
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (probation must serve ends of justice and public interest)
State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990) (standards for probation suitability)