State of Tennessee v. Kalandra Lacy, W2016-00837-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Kalandra Lacy pleaded guilty to one count of abuse of a corpse (Class E felony) after officers found the remains of a newborn in a dumpster behind her workplace; she admitted placing the infant (which she believed was dead following a miscarriage) in a plastic bag and the dumpster.
Medical examiner could not determine live birth or cause of death; no evidence tied defendant to post-placement damage to the body.
At sentencing the trial court denied judicial diversion, citing the seriousness of the offense, concern for potential future harm to the defendant’s children, and the judge’s independent research about prosecutions of similar incidents.
The trial court ordered one year of intensive supervised probation instead.
On appeal the Court of Criminal Appeals held the trial court failed to place on the record consideration and weighing of the Parker factors and improperly relied on its independent research; therefore the presumption of reasonableness did not apply and the court conducted a de novo review.
On de novo review the appellate court found the defendant qualified for diversion, that the Parker/Electroplating factors (amenability, social history, mental/physical health, lack of criminal record, circumstances of offense, deterrence) weighed in favor of diversion, and remanded with instructions to enter judicial diversion under the previously-imposed probation terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court properly denied judicial diversion	State: trial court properly considered offense seriousness and public protection concerns	Lacy: trial court failed to weigh required factors on the record and relied on improper outside research	Court: trial court failed to follow Parker/Electroplating; de novo review finds diversion appropriate
Whether independent judicial research may support denial	State: judge’s research informed reasonable concern about trend and deterrence	Lacy: research was outside the record and improper basis for decision	Court: judge improperly relied on extrinsic news/research; cannot base decision on personal knowledge
Whether circumstances of offense alone justified denial	State: offense severity and potential for harm justify denial	Lacy: conduct, though serious, did not exceed elements of offense and she believed infant was deceased; other factors favor diversion	Court: circumstances not of extraordinary degree to outweigh other favorable factors
Standard of appellate review for diversion denial	State: abuse-of-discretion review is appropriate	Lacy: trial court’s failure to put factors on record removes presumption of reasonableness requiring de novo review	Court: because Parker/Electroplating factors were not considered on record, presumption did not apply; court conducted de novo review and granted diversion

State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (trial court must consider Parker factors on the record and presumption of reasonableness applies if it does)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard for appellate review of sentencing decisions)
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (lists factors trial court must consider for judicial diversion)
Electroplating, Inc. v. State, 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (trial court must place explanation of its weighing of factors on the record)
State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (circumstances of offense may alone justify denial only when especially egregious)
Vaughn v. Shelby Williams of Tenn., Inc., 813 S.W.2d 132 (Tenn. 1991) (judge may not base decisions on personal, extra-record knowledge)
Fairbanks v. State, 508 S.W.2d 67 (Tenn. 1974) (limits on judicial reliance on personal beliefs/experiences)
State v. Henretta, 325 S.W.3d 112 (Tenn. 2010) (trial courts may not take judicial notice of news article contents as proof of facts)