State of Tennessee v. Mario Cogshell, M2016-01658-CCA-R3-CD

Mario Cogshell pleaded guilty to three counts of possession of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine with intent to sell, arising from three controlled buys in 2013 and 2015. Two delivery counts in each indictment were dismissed as part of the plea.
Cogshell has an extensive criminal history including two prior felony drug convictions, repeated community corrections violations, and offenses committed while on bail or parole.
At sentencing the trial court received the presentence report, victim/family testimony, and allocution; the court found one mitigating factor (motivation to provide for family) and two enhancement factors (prior criminal history; offenses committed while on bail).
The trial court imposed five years for each count (within the 3–6 year Range I C felony range), ordered the two 2015 convictions concurrent with each other and consecutive to the 2014 conviction, for an effective ten-year term to be served in confinement.
Cogshell appealed, arguing his sentence was excessive and that confinement was unnecessary. The State defended the sentence based on Cogshell’s criminal history and prior unsuccessful alternative sentences.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the sentences but remanded to ensure proper judgment forms exist for the dismissed second counts of each indictment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the within-range five-year sentences and consecutive service were excessive	State: Sentences are within statutory range and justified by prior convictions and offenses committed while on bail	Cogshell: Sentence is excessive; confinement unnecessary; mitigating background and rehabilitation potential	Court: Affirmed; abuse of discretion not shown; presumption of reasonableness applies to within-range sentences
Whether alternative (non‑custodial) sentencing was required	State: Alternative sentences inappropriate given history of violations and recidivism	Cogshell: Should receive probation or split confinement rather than full incarceration	Court: Denial of alternative sentence proper because confinement necessary given long criminal history and repeated failures of less restrictive measures
Whether enhancement and mitigating factors were applied properly	State: Trial court properly applied one mitigating and two enhancement factors in sentencing	Cogshell: Did not meaningfully contest the court’s factor findings on appeal	Court: Accepted trial court’s weighing; factor application supported the chosen sentence
Whether judgment forms need correction for dismissed counts	State: N/A; enforcement of uniform judgment forms is required	Cogshell: N/A	Court: Remanded to ensure uniform judgment forms are entered for the three dismissed second counts if they do not already exist

State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes abuse‑of‑discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentences)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (sets factors for denying alternative sentencing and imposing confinement)
State v. Davidson, 509 S.W.3d 156 (Tenn. 2016) (trial courts must prepare a uniform judgment document for each count of the indictment)
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001) (discussion of alternative sentencing and definitions)