State of Tennessee v. Ryan Reese Leath, M2024-00441-CCA-R3-CD

Ryan Reese Leath pleaded guilty to Driving Under the Influence (DUI), third offense, in Rutherford County, Tennessee, for an incident occurring on November 30, 2022.
At sentencing, Leath was ordered to serve eleven months and twenty-nine days, suspended to probation after six months in jail for the DUI, consecutive to a separate six-year sentence for theft of property over $10,000.
The trial court based consecutive sentencing on Leath's extensive prior criminal history, which included convictions for reckless endangerment, two prior DUIs, and two theft offenses.
Leath’s appeal challenged only the court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences, arguing the basis for the decision was insufficient.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion standard, considering the record without a transcript of the plea hearing, but with sufficient information from other sources.

Issue	Leath's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Was consecutive sentencing justified?	Prior criminal history not enough; court failed to justify.	Prior record was extensive; justified under law.	Consecutive sentences justified due to extensive prior criminal history.
Did the trial court follow proper procedures?	No, because it didn’t specify all required factors.	Yes, the court articulated sufficient reasons.	Court followed proper procedures; reasons were sufficient.
Was the length of sentence an abuse of discretion?	Yes, as the record did not support consecutive sentencing.	No, record supports the decision.	No abuse of discretion found.
Was appellate review possible with the record?	No, absence of plea hearing transcript prevents review.	Yes, record was otherwise sufficient for review.	Record was sufficient for meaningful review.

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes abuse of discretion standard and presumption of reasonableness for sentencing review)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (applies Bise standard to consecutive sentencing decisions and requires articulated reasons)
State v. Dickson, 413 S.W.3d 735 (Tenn. 2013) (confirms any properly-articulated statutory ground suffices for consecutive sentences)
State v. Arnett, 49 S.W.3d 250 (Tenn. 2001) (places burden to prove sentencing error on the appellant)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (reiterates general sentencing principles including proportionality and least severe measure)