State of Tennessee v. Kristie Louis Mclerran, M2016-02005-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Kristie McLerran pled nolo contendere to attempted aggravated child neglect (Class B felony under plea agreement) and agreed to an eight-year Range I sentence; sentencing hearing would determine confinement vs. alternative sentence.
Infant victim (born ~Dec 2010) presented in Feb 2011 with profound malnutrition, hypoglycemia, and "failure to thrive;" treating pediatrician described the child as emaciated and testified the condition was due to insufficient nutrition.
Medical records showed missed pediatric appointments and delayed hospital presentation after a PCP referral; an initially reported positive drug screen from breast milk was later characterized as a false positive by a pediatrician.
At sentencing, the trial court found the victim especially vulnerable (infancy), that McLerran abused a position of private trust, and that confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense; court also questioned McLerran’s amenability to rehabilitation due to failure to report in person for pre-sentence urinalysis.
Trial court imposed an eight-year term with confinement (30% release eligibility); McLerran appealed the denial of alternative sentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (McLerran)	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying alternative sentencing	Incarceration appropriate because offense circumstances were especially shocking and required confinement to avoid depreciating seriousness	McLerran argued she was suitable for probation: limited criminal history, compliance on bond, completed DCS program, mitigating factors, no intent to harm, other children unaffected, hardship from incarceration	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; confinement supported by offense seriousness, vulnerability of victim, trust abuse, and doubts about amenability to rehabilitation
Whether the trial court properly relied on "seriousness of the offense" to deny probation	The State relied on medical testimony and facts showing victim was nearly "almost dead," supporting a finding the offense was especially reprehensible	McLerran argued circumstances did not demonstrate intentional or egregious neglect and mitigating circumstances existed	Held — circumstances (profound malnutrition, missed care, intern’s reaction, physician testimony) met standard for "especially...shocking" offense supporting confinement
Whether trial court improperly considered elements of the offense or unproven allegations	State maintained court could "look behind the plea" and consider true nature of offense for sentencing	McLerran contended court impermissibly relied on elements of the offense or unproven drug use	Held — court appropriately considered enhancement factors and rehabilitation potential; drug screen false-positive noted but other facts sufficed for findings
Whether the trial court failed to consider mitigating factors or least-restrictive sanctions	State argued court considered and rejected mitigation after weighing evidence; sentence was the least severe required	McLerran argued court ignored mitigating evidence (employment, family support, past probation success) and alternatives for family hardship	Held — court considered mitigation and expressly found none applied; concluded confinement was the least severe needed to achieve sentencing purposes

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for within-range sentences; presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to alternative sentencing decisions)
State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (to deny probation based on seriousness, offense must be especially violent/shocking/reprehensible)
State v. Grissom, 956 S.W.2d 514 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (standard for "especially" reprehensible offenses supporting confinement)
State v. Pierce, 138 S.W.3d 820 (Tenn. 2004) (trial court may look behind plea to consider true nature of offense when sentencing)
State v. Housewright, 982 S.W.2d 354 (Tenn. 1998) (limitations on considering offense elements when denying probation)
State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (enhancement/mitigating factors relevant to manner of service)
State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (consideration of rehabilitative potential when awarding alternatives)
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (prohibitions on using offense elements improperly at sentencing)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (discussing interplay of sentencing principles and prior authorities)