State of Tennessee v. Johnny Jackson, Jr., W2021-00208-CCA-R3-CD

Background

On Oct. 16, 2019, victim Jessica Jackson met defendant (her husband, living separately) in a parking lot; defendant threatened her with a box cutter and forced her to drive to buy crack cocaine.
After returning to the victim’s apartment they used drugs; the defendant became paranoid, prevented her from leaving, knocked her down, pinned her, punched and choked her; victim escaped the next morning and called 911.
A jury convicted Johnny Jackson, Jr. of aggravated assault by strangulation and domestic assault, acquitted him of aggravated kidnapping, and imposed fines totaling $2,500; the trial court sentenced him to 15 years (aggravated assault) and 11 months, 29 days (domestic assault), to be served concurrently but consecutive to another sentence.
On appeal the defendant argued the trial court improperly applied enhancement factor (9) (possession of a deadly weapon), failed to find/consider mitigation (mental illness and chronic substance abuse), and failed to properly review/justify the jury-imposed fines.
The Court of Criminal Appeals held the trial court abused its discretion: enhancement factor (9) was not supported by the record (weapon shown only hours earlier in car, not during the apartment assault); the court failed to consider mitigation supported by the record; and the court failed to analyze the fines. The aggravated-assault sentence was reduced to 13 years and the case remanded for proper fine review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jackson)	Held
Applicability of enhancement factor (9): possession/employment of a deadly weapon	Weapon (box cutter) was produced during encounter and supports enhancement	Box cutter appeared hours earlier in car; no proof it was possessed or used during apartment assaults	Factor (9) misapplied — no proof weapon was present during the offenses of conviction; factor stricken
Failure to find mitigating factors (mental illness / substance abuse)	Mitigation evidence is self-serving or of little weight	Pre-sentence report, Strong R needs report, trial testimony document schizophrenia, paranoia, depression, long-term substance abuse and treatment attempts	Trial court abused discretion by failing to recognize/consider mitigation; mitigation should have been considered under §40-35-113(8) or (13)
Trial court's affirmation of jury-imposed fines without findings	Fines are within jury limits and appropriate	Trial court failed to analyze ability to pay or weigh statutory sentencing factors; requests de novo review/reduction	Trial court failed to make required findings; fines vacated for remand so trial court may conduct proper, fact-based review
Overall sentence length (15 years)	Trial court reasonably applied enhancements and sentencing principles	Maximum term excessive given misapplied enhancement and unconsidered mitigation	Because factor (9) was misapplied and mitigation not considered, sentence reduced to 13 years (concurrent with 11 months, 29 days); remand for fine analysis

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review with a presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (trial courts must articulate sentencing reasons in accordance with Sentencing Act)
State v. Trent, 533 S.W.3d 282 (Tenn. 2017) (reinforces requirement that sentencing courts explain how factors further sentencing purposes)
State v. Taylor, 70 S.W.3d 717 (Tenn. 2002) (trial court must consider statutory factors, including ability to pay, before imposing or affirming jury fines)
State v. Blevins, 968 S.W.2d 888 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court may not simply adopt a jury fine without conducting statutory analysis)
State v. Butler, 108 S.W.3d 845 (Tenn. 2003) (ability to pay is relevant but not dispositive in fine imposition)
State v. Bryant, 805 S.W.2d 762 (Tenn. 1991) (fines are part of the sentence and reviewed under sentencing standards)
State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (seriousness of offense can justify a punitive fine)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (lists materials/circumstances a trial court should consider at sentencing)
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986) (sentencing principles and factors to be considered)