State of Tennessee v. Paul Avery Reno, M2016-01903-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Paul Avery Reno pleaded guilty to statutory rape (victim age 14) under a plea agreement calling for a six-year Range III sentence; factual basis included admissions of intercourse and sexually explicit text messages.
At sentencing the trial court denied judicial diversion, denied alternative/split probationary sentencing, ordered confinement, and required sex-offender registration.
The trial court emphasized the age gap, prior relationships with much younger women (including an asserted relationship resulting in a child when the mother was purportedly 14), and concerns about risk to a minor living in the household.
The record lacked proof that the earlier relationship met statutory-rape elements, the court relied on the defendant’s noncriminal but unconventional relationships, and no psychosexual evaluation was performed.
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction but held the sentencing must be remanded for a new hearing and a statutorily required psychosexual evaluation before readdressing diversion, alternative sentencing, and registry issues.

Issue	State's Argument	Reno's Argument	Held
Denial of judicial diversion	Trial court properly weighed Electroplating/Parker factors and diversion was inappropriate given circumstances and deterrence needs	Court failed to properly weigh factors; relied on improper or unsupported facts; diversion should have been granted	Trial court considered factors but relied on improper/unsupported factors (e.g., unproven prior statutory rape, disapproval of lawful relationships); remand for resentencing to reconsider diversion after proper fact-finding and psychosexual evaluation
Denial of alternative sentencing / probation	Court may consider offense facts and defendant’s credibility; confinement appropriate to protect public and avoid depreciating seriousness	Court failed to state enhancement/mitigating findings, misapplied factors, and did not obtain required psychosexual evaluation	Remanded: trial court misapplied factors, failed to record enhancement/mitigation findings, and violated statute by not ordering psychosexual evaluation before ruling on alternative sentencing
Sex-offender registration order	Trial court’s findings supported registration given circumstances and plea facts	Registration order was an afterthought; court didn’t state reasons on the record and lacked psychosexual evaluation	Court did not place adequate findings on the record; remand required so trial court can reconsider registration (with appropriate findings and after psychosexual evaluation)

King v. State, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (standard and review framework for judicial diversion decisions)
Electroplating Co. v. State, 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (factors trial court must consider when ruling on diversion)
Parker v. State, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (articulation requirements for diversion rulings)
Neeley v. State, 678 S.W.2d 48 (Tenn. 1984) (truthfulness as permissible factor in diversion/sentencing)
Caudle v. State, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for probation/sentencing)
Ashby v. State, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (sentencing must consider nature of offense and defendant’s background)
Trotter v. State, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (criteria for denying probation/confinement justified)
Ring v. State, 56 S.W.3d 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (relevance of enhancement/mitigating factors to sentencing alternatives)
Ealey v. State, 959 S.W.2d 605 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (trial court must state when no enhancement/mitigating factors apply)
Biggs v. State, 769 S.W.2d 506 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1988) (court may consider true nature of crime beyond plea agreement)
Hollingsworth v. State, 647 S.W.2d 937 (Tenn. 1983) (same)