State of Tennessee v. Mohnika M. King, E2015-01802-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Mohnika M. King, a former Home Federal Bank customer service representative, pleaded guilty to one count of theft (>$10,000 but < $60,000) and one count of forgery; agreed 4-year Range I sentence with manner of service left to the trial court. Two other counts were dismissed.
Bank investigation showed King made 28 withdrawals from two elderly customers’ accounts between Oct 2012 and Oct 2013, totaling $16,254; victims were aged 78 and 83 and described as devastated.
King resigned after being placed on administrative leave; she later received a $19,313.33 401(k)/pension check but had not paid restitution at sentencing; the bank reimbursed the victims.
Presentence materials and King’s statements showed she admitted the withdrawals only after being confronted and expressed remorse in court; the trial court questioned her candor and failure to use the 401(k) funds for restitution.
Trial court found King eligible for judicial diversion but denied diversion, citing lack of amenability to correction, abuse of professional trust (targeting elderly customers), and deterrence/public interest concerns; imposed four-year sentence suspended to six years probation with 15 days confinement and monthly restitution payments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (King)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying judicial diversion	Trial court properly weighed factors and denial was supported by record	King argued court overemphasized lack of remorse, didn’t state weight of factors, gave cursory consideration to favorable factors	Denial affirmed; substantial evidence supports trial court’s decision

State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (missing transcripts are presumed to support trial court when record otherwise allows meaningful review)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (judicial diversion discretionary; trial court must identify factors and explain reasoning on the record)
State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (sets Parker/Electroplating factors for diversion)
State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (lists factors to consider for diversion eligibility and suitability)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review standard: presume reasonableness if trial court considered relevant factors and explained decision)
State v. Washington, 866 S.W.2d 950 (Tenn. 1993) (additional factors trial court may consider for diversion)
State v. Curry, 988 S.W.2d 153 (Tenn. 1999) (defendant bears burden to prove suitability for diversion)