State of Tennessee v. Michael Glenn Holt, E2015-01892-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Michael Glenn Holt pleaded guilty to theft (Class E felony) and criminal trespass (Class C misdemeanor) with an agreed aggregate sentence of four years; sentencing was postponed pending a presentence report.
Holt, released on his own recognizance and directed to attend drug treatment, left treatment early and failed to appear at his sentencing hearing; a capias issued and he was later arrested on additional charges.
Holt was charged separately with failure to appear (Class E felony) and pleaded guilty, leaving length and manner of service to the trial court.
Presentence report showed ~80–90 prior convictions, multiple probation revocations, daily cocaine use, and a high risk for unsuccessful probation; parties agreed Holt was a Range II, multiple offender (range 2–4 years) for the failure-to-appear charge.
At sentencing the trial court imposed the maximum four-year sentence for failure to appear, denied alternative/community corrections or split confinement, and ordered that sentence to run consecutively to the prior four-year term for a total effective eight years.
Holt appealed, arguing the four-year sentence was excessive, alternative sentencing was wrongly denied, and consecutive sentences were not statutorily mandated; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Holt's Argument	Held
Whether the four-year sentence for failure to appear was excessive	Sentence within Range II (2–4 yrs); trial court reasonably relied on extensive criminal history and enhancement factors	Four years is grossly excessive for a victimless failure to appear; court ignored mitigating factors (e.g., attending to sick mother)	Affirmed: within-range sentence presumed reasonable; record supports maximum sentence.
Whether denial of community corrections or split confinement was improper	Trial court properly considered alternatives and rebutted presumption by record of recidivism, prior revocations, failed treatment, and new offenses while released	Holt argued he was eligible and CAPP would assist; failure to articulate split confinement denial was error	Affirmed: trial court considered factors and evidence rebutted presumption of alternative sentencing.
Whether consecutive service of the failure-to-appear sentence was mandatory	Consecutive service was required because failure to appear occurred while defendant was released on conditions; alternatively discretion supported consecutive given extensive criminal history	Holt argued release on own recognizance is not "on bail" and that the failure-to-appear statute allows discretion (not mandatory consecutive term)	Issue waived on appeal (not adequately briefed); but even on merits consecutive service proper under either statutory discretion or sentencing factors given extensive criminal history.
Whether the trial court failed to consider sentencing principles and mitigation	State: trial court followed Sentencing Act, considered presentence report, and applied enhancement factors	Holt: court focused primarily on criminal history and omitted other statutory factors	Held: No abuse of discretion; court’s consideration and record support conclusion.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard and presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (factors that rebut presumption of alternative sentencing)
State v. Fields, 40 S.W.3d 435 (Tenn. 2001) (definition and purpose of alternative sentencing/community corrections)
State v. Nelson, 275 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2008) (extensive criminal history alone can justify consecutive sentencing)
State v. Adams, 973 S.W.2d 224 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (support for consecutive sentences based on criminal history)
State v. Ball, 973 S.W.2d 288 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (Community Corrections Act criteria are minimum standards; eligibility not entitlement)