State of Tennessee v. Mark Oden Potts
M2016-02079-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Mark Oden Potts pled guilty to two Class B felonies (possession of ≥ .5 g methamphetamine with intent to sell/deliver, merged), and two Class A misdemeanors; received an effective eight-year sentence as a standard offender.
- Facts: a confidential informant fronted money to a co-defendant for an ounce of meth; Potts was observed traveling, engaged in a hand-to-hand exchange, and later stopped; 17.4 grams of meth, scales, baggies, a pipe, and small amount of marijuana were found in his vehicle.
- Investigation evidence and officer testimony suggested Potts allowed his residence to be used for meth cooks, participated in distribution, and had ordered meth via FedEx; Potts declined to be interviewed.
- Defense presented character witnesses describing Potts’s prior respectable career as a teacher/coach, family responsibilities (elderly mother), remorse, and desire for rehabilitation.
- At sentencing the trial court found incarceration necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of methamphetamine offenses in a county experiencing an ‘‘epidemic of ice,’’ and concluded jail offered the best chance for rehabilitation; denied probation/community corrections.
- Potts appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by denying an alternative sentence; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Potts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying alternative sentencing | Denial proper because confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating seriousness and to deter meth distribution in the community | Probation or community corrections was appropriate given character evidence, remorse, and eligibility for alternatives | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; trial court properly applied sentencing principles and denied alternative sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review: within-range sentences reviewed for abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness)
- State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (same abuse-of-discretion standard applies to alternative-sentencing decisions)
- State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (defendant bears burden to establish suitability for probation)
- State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (appellant has burden to show sentence is improper)
- State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (Community Corrections eligibility criteria are minimum standards and do not create a right to placement)