State of Tennessee v. Michael Nelson Hurt
E2016-02507-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 18, 2017Background
- Defendant, Michael Nelson Hurt, pled guilty to official misconduct and theft of property valued over $1000 with an out-of-range six-year probation sentence.
- Defendant sought judicial diversion; the trial court denied diversion after considering Parker factors.
- Plea agreement provided for six years’ probation to be served on community supervision; restitution set at $4,829.50.
- State summarized evidence of misappropriation involving funds from impounded vehicles and scrap metal not deposited to city treasury.
- Trial court found offense involved public trust and police duties; considered lack of prior criminal history and positive social history but denied diversion.
- Court ultimately affirmed the judgments and remanded for judgment forms on counts disposed by the plea, with no new evidentiary hearing required beyond record application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parker factors were properly considered | Hurt | Hurt asserts trial court limited factors considered | The court correctly weighed Parker factors; presumption of reasonableness applies. |
| Whether denial of judicial diversion was supported by substantial evidence | State | Diversion denied despite favorable factors | There was substantial evidence supporting denial. |
| Whether denial of diversion was disproportionately punitive | State | Conviction outcomes deemed punitive | No reversible error; no authority to overturn on this ground. |
| Whether on remand judgment forms should be entered for disposed counts | Remand to enter judgment forms for counts disposed by plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (presumption of reasonableness when factors identified and record reflects consideration of Parker/Electroplating factors)
- Caudle v. State, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing decisions; applies to diversion rulings)
- Bise v. State, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentencing decisions with proper application of Sentencing Act)
- State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999) (requirements to weigh Parker/Electroplating factors and articulate reasoning on record)
- State v. Hamilton, 498 S.W.3d 7 (Tenn. 2016) (addressed scope of factor analysis in diversion review; not binding precedent for judicial diversion under King)