State of Tennessee v. Rico Carter Whisnet, W2016-02173-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Rico Carter Whisnet was convicted by a Hardeman County jury of two counts: delivery of 0.5 gram or more of cocaine (Class B) and delivery of less than 0.5 gram of cocaine (Class C) based on two controlled buys in July 2014.
The State used a paid confidential informant who made two recorded purchases; video recordings (played at trial) and the informant’s testimony identified Whisnet as the seller.
TBI analysis showed one buy produced 0.64 g cocaine base and the other 0.20 g cocaine base.
At sentencing Whisnet was classified as a Range II, multiple offender; the presentence report documented prior drug convictions, revoked probation, mental-health treatment, and substance use history.
The trial court applied mitigating factor (1) (no serious bodily injury) and enhancement factor (1) (prior criminal history), imposed concurrent sentences of 16 years (B felony) and 8 years (C felony) at 35% service.
Whisnet appealed, arguing the court misapplied enhancement and mitigating factors, failed to consider mitigating factors related to family motivation and psychological disability, and improperly used decade-old convictions to enhance sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Whisnet)	Held
Whether trial court misapplied enhancement factor (1) based on prior convictions	Prior convictions and revoked probation support enhancement	Prior drug convictions were over ten years old and should not be used to enhance	Court upheld use of prior convictions; record supports enhancement factor (1)
Whether trial court failed to apply mitigating factors (family necessity, psychological disability)	Court considered sentencing factors and mitigation; no abuse of discretion	Court should have applied §40-35-113(7) and (13) for family motivation and psychological issues	Court found mitigation properly considered; no abuse of discretion in not applying those specific factors
Whether sentence length (above minimum) was improper	Sentences within statutory Range II limits and court followed sentencing principles	Argues court erred by imposing more than minimum without proper factor application	Sentences affirmed under abuse-of-discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness
Whether probation was appropriate	Prior ineffective probation and revoked probation support denial	Defendant argued for leniency/probation due to disability and life circumstances	Court reasonably denied probation given prior revocation and criminal history

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for within-range sentences and tolerates some misapplication of factors)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (lists factors and materials a trial court must consider at sentencing)
State v. Moss, 727 S.W.2d 229 (Tenn. 1986) (sentencing principles and appellate review standards)
State v. Taylor, 744 S.W.2d 919 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987) (sentencing considerations and record review)