State of Tennessee v. Melanie C. Moore, E2017-00027-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Melanie C. Moore pleaded guilty to: Class C theft (>$10,000 <$60,000), Class D theft (>$1,000 <$10,000), Class E reckless endangerment, and Class A misdemeanor escape for conduct on Oct 14, 2015 that began in Georgia and ended at Camp Jordan Park (TN).
Facts: Moore stole two vehicles (one with two young children inside), drove through park areas and fences, children were recovered unharmed, and Moore briefly fled from police at booking.
At sentencing Moore presented evidence of severe mental-health symptoms and substance abuse; she had prior convictions and was on probation when these offenses occurred.
Trial court applied several mitigators (mental condition, remorse, support) but gave limited weight to some; applied enhancements for prior convictions, drug use, probation violation, and use of vehicle as a deadly weapon.
Court imposed 4.5 yrs (Count 1), 3 yrs (Count 2), 2 yrs (Count 3), 3 months (Count 4); Counts 2–4 were ordered consecutively to Count 1 but counts 2 & 3 concurrent with each other; aggregate effective sentence 7.5 years with only Count 1 to be served in DOC and others suspended.
On appeal Moore challenged: (1) trial court’s consideration of uncharged "kidnapping" conduct, (2) length/confinement of Count 1, and (3) partial consecutive sentencing alignment. Court affirmed but remanded to correct judgment to order Count 4 consecutive to counts 2 and 3 per statutory requirement for escape.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court improperly considered uncharged "kidnapping" conduct at sentencing	State: trial court may consider actual conduct behind plea when applying enhancements	Moore: trial court relied on uncharged kidnapping to enhance/deny mitigation for Count 1	Court: No error — trial court may "look behind" plea and consider uncharged conduct under §40-35-114(1) and related precedents
Whether 4.5-year sentence for Count 1 was excessive/should be minimum	State: sentence within statutory range and supported by factors (record, lack of rehab, seriousness)	Moore: evidence at sentencing did not justify above-minimum term given mitigators (mental illness)	Court: Affirmed — sentence within range, trial court reasonably weighed enhancers/mitigators; confinement justified by multiple §40-35-103 factors
Whether trial court erred in denying alternative (fully suspended) sentence for Count 1	State: confinement appropriate given prior record, probation status, repeated failures of less-restrictive measures, and offense severity	Moore: theft involving children charged separately (Count 2), so Count 1 confinement unjustified	Court: Affirmed — court permissibly considered the offenses as a continuing course and other statutory grounds for confinement
Whether consecutive sentencing alignment was improper, and whether escape sentence must be consecutive to other sentences	State: consecutive sentences supported by defendant’s extensive record and probation status	Moore: record not "extensive" and lacks violent convictions; trial court misapplied consecutive findings	Court: Largely affirmed consecutive orders as supported by preponderance showing of extensive record; remanded to correct judgments so misdemeanor escape (Count 4) runs consecutively to counts 2 and 3 per statute

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (extends Bise principles to consecutive sentencing; any single statutory ground suffices)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (trial court’s weighing of enhancement/mitigating factors left to its discretion)
State v. Hollingsworth, 647 S.W.2d 937 (Tenn. 1983) (trial court may look beyond plea to consider true nature of offenses for sentencing)