State of Tennessee v. Jonathan David Patterson, M2016-01716-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Jonathan David Patterson pleaded guilty (open pleas) to multiple counts across four Putnam County indictments for numerous auto burglaries, thefts, burglary, and related offenses arising from a series of July 2015 crimes.
At sentencing the trial court imposed an effective aggregate sentence of 31 years (various within-range terms, some concurrent, some consecutive), based on extensive prior convictions and finding the defendant an offender with an extensive criminal history.
Patterson filed a direct appeal and, within 120 days of sentencing, moved under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35 to reduce his sentence; he presented no new post‑sentencing information at the Rule 35 hearing.
The trial court granted Rule 35 relief and reduced the effective sentence to 18 years, explaining its view that the original effective sentence was excessive.
The State appealed the Rule 35 reduction; this Court consolidated the appeals and reviewed (1) whether the Rule 35 reduction was proper and (2) whether the original 31-year sentence or alleged plea‑agreement breach warranted relief.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Patterson's Argument	Held
Was the Rule 35 reduction proper?	Rule 35 requires unforeseen post‑sentencing information/developments to alter a sentence; none shown here, so reduction was an abuse of discretion.	Trial court may reconsider and reduce sentences within 120 days when judge, upon reflection, deems it in the interest of justice even absent new post‑sentencing facts.	Reversed: trial court abused discretion; defendant presented no post‑sentencing developments to justify reduction; original 31‑yr sentence should be reinstated.
Was the original 31‑year sentence excessive?	Trial court properly applied sentencing factors and consecutive sentencing based on extensive criminal history; within range and reasonable.	Sentence was excessive given nonviolent record, no weapons used, mitigating factors and assistance to police.	Affirmed: 31‑yr aggregate sentence was within range and not an abuse of discretion.
Did the prosecutor breach the plea agreement by commenting on sentencing?	No reversible error; plea was an open plea and record lacks an agreement barring State comment; defendant failed to object and cannot show plain error.	Prosecutor violated the spirit of the plea by indicating the court would approach the sentence the State had in mind after stating it would not recommend a number.	Waived / denied: issue waived for failure to object; no plain error shown; plea agreement did not prohibit State comment.
Remand instructions / missing judgment form	State asked reinstatement of original sentences and completion of record.	Patterson did not dispute need for correcting missing judgment form.	Court ordered reinstatement of original judgments (31 years) and entry of a judgment for Count 37 of one indictment on remand.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ruiz, 204 S.W.3d 772 (Tenn. 2006) (Rule 35 standard and abuse‑of‑discretion review principles)
State v. Hodges, 815 S.W.2d 151 (Tenn. 1991) (discussing judge’s post‑sentencing reconsideration in the interest of justice)
State v. McDonald, 893 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (holding Rule 35 relief generally requires post‑sentencing information or developments)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentencing that follows statutory principles)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for within‑range sentencing)
State v. Biggs, 482 S.W.3d 923 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2017) (analysis of proportionality and consecutive sentencing concerns)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (standards for consecutive sentencing and presumption of reasonableness)