State of Tennessee v. Richard W. Wilburn, M2016-00704-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Richard W. Wilburn pled guilty to initiating a process intended to manufacture methamphetamine (Class B felony) and three counts of driving on a revoked license; sentences to run concurrently, with length/manner left to the trial court.
Police found multiple items consistent with a meth lab at Defendant’s rented home and on the porch/yard: five "gas generators," syringes, pseudoephedrine, acids, coffee filters with meth residue, ammonium nitrate, and related tools; house was quarantined as uninhabitable.
Detective testified children were present on the property and that gas generators were in "dangerous proximity" to them; meth "cooking" is dangerous and can explode.
Defendant admitted involvement (held a coffee filter), claimed a drug-addicted role (not a dealer), and sought treatment but had limited prior rehab efforts; he has an extensive criminal history (~40–50 prior convictions) and many probation violations.
Trial court applied enhancement factor (1) (prior criminal history) and factor (10) (no hesitation when risk to human life was high), imposed a ten-year sentence (within the 8–12 year Range I range), and denied any alternative sentence or community corrections placement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether enhancement factor (10) (risk to human life) properly applied to increase methamphetamine sentence	Factor (10) applies because meth "cooking" is dangerous, gas generators were proximate to children, creating a high risk to human life	Factor (10) improper because there was no proof anyone was actually endangered by Defendant’s actions	Court affirmed application of factor (10); even if misapplied, extensive prior record (factor (1)) independently supports the ten-year within-range sentence
Whether the court erred by denying any alternative sentence (probation or community corrections) and failing to apply the Community Corrections "special needs" provision	Denial appropriate: Defendant has long criminal history, multiple probation failures, low rehabilitation potential; less restrictive measures have been tried and failed	Defendant argued need for drug treatment and eligibility under community corrections special-needs provision	Court affirmed denial of alternative sentencing and found community corrections inapplicable given Defendant’s record and unsuccessful prior community-based sanctions; treatment within a correctional setting is appropriate

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (appellate review of within-range sentence is abuse-of-discretion with presumption of reasonableness; misapplied factors do not automatically invalidate sentence)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (no longer a presumption favoring alternative sentencing; defendant must show suitability)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard applies to probation/alternative sentencing decisions)
State v. Keel, 882 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (caution in applying enhancement factor reflecting inherent dangers of certain drugs; factual scenarios may justify its use)
State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250 (Tenn. 2001) (burden on appellant to show sentence improper)
Hooper v. State, 297 S.W.2d 78 (Tenn. 1956) (probation must serve interests of public and defendant)
State v. Grear, 568 S.W.2d 285 (Tenn. 1978) (factors relevant to probation consideration)
State v. Boston, 938 S.W.2d 435 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (requirements for community corrections special-needs eligibility)