State of Tennessee v. Rawney Jean Taylor, M2015-02142-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Rawney Jean Taylor (Appellant) was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of initiating a false report (Class D), criminally negligent homicide (Class E, lesser included of felony murder), and reckless endangerment (Class A misdemeanor) for the death of her 4-year-old daughter; sentences: 3 years, 2 years, and 11 months, 29 days respectively, with the 3- and 2-year terms ordered consecutively for a 5-year effective term.
Facts at sentencing: victim exhibited extensive, multi-aged blunt-force injuries and signs of violent shaking; autopsy found homicide by multiple blunt force injuries and battered child syndrome; some injuries were at least 48 hours old.
The Appellant worked the day before the fatal injuries, returned home that evening, observed the child snoring (described at trial as possibly agonal breathing), checked again at midnight, and then did not obtain timely medical attention; 911 was not called until mid-afternoon the next day.
Appellant initially lied to investigators about discovery times and delayed truthful statements until August; daughter’s sister and medical examiner testimony supported prior abuse and violent cause of death.
At sentencing the trial court applied enhancement factors that the victim was particularly vulnerable and was treated with exceptional cruelty, found no mitigating factors applicable, denied judicial diversion and probation, and classified Taylor as a dangerous offender when ordering consecutive sentences.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Length of sentences	Three- and two-year felony terms excessive; trial court misapplied enhancements and failed to apply mitigators	Sentences within statutory ranges; court properly weighed factors and could refuse proposed mitigators	Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in imposing 3- and 2-year terms; enhancement factors supported and mitigators not compelling
Consecutive sentencing	Consecutive service of 3- and 2-year terms as a "dangerous offender" was improper	Consecutive sentences appropriate given extreme callousness, prior abuse evidence, and protection/public-safety needs	Affirmed: record supports dangerous-offender classification and Wilkerson factors implicit in record; 5-year total reasonably related to severity
Judicial diversion denial	Appellant qualified and should have received diversion given lack of prior felony record and employment history	Aggravating circumstances, lack of remorse, deception, and circumstances of offense weigh heavily against diversion	Affirmed: de novo review finds substantial evidence against diversion on amenability, offense severity, deterrence, and public interest grounds
Probation / alternative sentencing denial	Appellant was eligible and a suitable candidate for probation / alternative sentencing	Circumstances are shocking and confinement necessary to avoid depreciating seriousness and to deter others	Affirmed: trial court reasonably denied alternative sentencing under §40-35-103 because confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating seriousness of offense

Key Cases Cited

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review of sentence length/manner is abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (consecutive sentencing review and when remand/de novo review is required)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (sentencing review standard application)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (trial court discretion in weighing enhancement/mitigating factors)
Wilkerson v. State, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (consecutive sentencing criteria and dangerous-offender analysis)
State v. Moore, 942 S.W.2d 570 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (explaining additional Wilkerson requirements for dangerous-offender consecutive sentences)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (upholding dangerous-offender classification where defendant showed extreme callousness and result was fatal)
State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (judicial diversion standard and scope of review)
Electroplating, Inc. v. State, 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (factors for judicial diversion consideration)
State v. Zeolia, 928 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (when confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating seriousness of the offense)