State of Tennessee v. Joseph D. Sexton, M2017-00735-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Joseph D. Sexton was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual battery against his adopted daughter; he pled guilty to one count of attempted aggravated sexual battery in exchange for dismissal of two counts.
Plea agreement left sentencing to the trial court; Defendant classified as a Range I, standard offender with 30% release eligibility.
Victim (adopted daughter) testified to sexual touching beginning at age eleven; presentence report and evaluations indicated multiple inappropriate contacts and other concerning conduct by Defendant.
Defendant claimed remorse, asserted the offense was isolated, and described personal/family difficulties; the presentence report included inconsistent statements and admission of viewing pornography depicting minors.
Trial court applied two enhancement factors (one later determined to be misapplied because it duplicated an element) and one mitigating factor (acknowledgment of guilt), sentenced Defendant to five years, and denied alternative sentencing, finding confinement necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense and to deter others.
Defendant appealed, challenging sentence length/weighting of factors and denial of probation; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the five-year within-range sentence was excessive because the trial court misweighed enhancement/mitigating factors	Sentence is proper; trial court applied sentencing principles and statute	Argued trial court effectively started at top of range and incorrectly balanced factors; sought shorter sentence	Affirmed — within-range sentence upheld; mere disagreement with weight assigned to factors is not a basis for reversal (abuse of discretion standard)
Whether denial of alternative sentencing (probation) was improper	Denial was proper: confinement needed to avoid depreciating seriousness and to deter; circumstances were especially reprehensible	Argued he was a favorable candidate for probation as a Range I, Class C felony offender	Affirmed — record supported court’s finding that the offense’s nature and presentence report justified incarceration; no abuse of discretion

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review of within-range sentences gives a presumption of reasonableness and the trial court’s weighing of advisory factors is not grounds for reversal)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (court may consider but is not bound by enhancement/mitigating factors; defendant bears burden to show sentence improper)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (defendant bears burden of proving sentence is improper)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (an enhancement factor cannot duplicate an essential element of the offense)
State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2016) (denial of alternative sentencing may rest on combined considerations of deterrence, seriousness, and offense circumstances)
State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (to deny probation based on seriousness, the offense must be especially violent, shocking, or reprehensible)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences and alternative-sentencing decisions)