State of Tennessee v. Kevin E. Trent, 533 S.W.3d 282

Background

Kevin E. Trent pled guilty to one count of vehicular homicide by intoxication (Class B felony) for a May 3, 2012 collision that ultimately killed Karen Freeman; he received an agreed eight-year Range I sentence with the manner of service to be determined after a sentencing hearing.
At sentencing, victim impact testimony described severe injury and eventual death; witnesses described concerns about Trent’s driving and possible slurred speech earlier the same day.
Trent, who lost both forearms and a leg in a prior motorcycle accident, testified he was prescribed opioid and benzodiazepine medications, had no memory of the crash, and acknowledged occasional overuse of pain medication; no toxicology report or expert testimony was introduced at the sentencing hearing.
The trial court applied enhancement factor (10) ("no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high") and ordered confinement for eight years; the court gave limited on-the-record reasoning and did not fully articulate findings about amenability to correction or reliance on the presentence report.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the incarceration and instead ordered full probation, concluding the record did not support denying probation solely to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense.
The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review, found the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to permit appellate deference and that the appellate court erred by imposing probation on the undeveloped record; it vacated both lower courts’ sentencing determinations and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied probation and ordered confinement	State argued incarceration was warranted given serious harm, defendant’s medication use, and evidence showing dangerous driving behavior	Trent argued denial was based solely on the elements of the offense and the record lacked proof that the crime was "especially" egregious to justify denying probation	Trial court failed to make adequate findings; record insufficient for presumption of reasonableness, so remand for new sentencing hearing
Whether enhancement factor (10) applied	State argued factor applied due to driving on medications and apparent disregard for risk to human life	Trent disputed applicability; record lacked proof others (besides the victim) were placed at risk	Factor (10) misapplied—no evidence risk to persons other than the victim; trial court erred in applying it
Whether Court of Criminal Appeals could order full probation on appeal	State argued appellate court lacked sufficient record to substitute its own sentencing judgment and probation is defendant’s burden to prove	CCA imposed probation, finding denial unsupported by record	Supreme Court held CCA erred: appellate record inadequate to impose probation; defendant bears burden to show suitability for probation
Standard of appellate review for within-range sentences / alternative sentencing	State defended trial court’s decision under abuse-of-discretion with presumption of reasonableness where trial court articulates reasons	Trent argued trial court did not articulate sufficient reasons so presumption should not apply	Bise/Caudle standard applies, but presumption requires adequate on-record articulation; absent that, appellate deference does not apply

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (adopts abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (applies Bise standard to alternative sentencing decisions)
State v. Travis, 622 S.W.2d 529 (Tenn. 1981) (probation may be denied for offense circumstances only when the crime is especially egregious as actually committed)
State v. Grissom, 956 S.W.2d 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (discusses limits on denying probation based on offense elements)
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (interprets enhancement factor (10) and limits use of offense elements in denying probation)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (addresses sentencing-law principles and precedents cited for enhancement analysis)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (places burden on defendant to prove suitability for probation)