State of Tennessee v. Sherry Ann Claffey
W2016-00356-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Dec 14, 2016Background
- Defendant Sherry Ann Claffey pled nolo contendere to two counts of vehicular homicide (reckless conduct) after a highway collision that killed two occupants of another vehicle. Defendant’s vehicle struck the rear of the victims’ vehicle; crash data indicated ~72 mph in a 55 mph zone.
- Blood toxicology: negative for alcohol; positive for several prescription drugs. A state reconstruction team concluded the defendant failed to maintain control while speeding and was under the influence of drugs. Defendant testified she could not recall the collision and that she took prescribed medications as directed.
- At sentencing the State recommended concurrent 5-year terms; the defendant sought judicial diversion under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-313. Victim impact testimony opposed diversion; three character witnesses supported diversion.
- The trial court denied judicial diversion, sentenced the defendant to concurrent five-year terms with 200 days confinement followed by probation, and suspended her driver’s license for five years.
- On appeal the court examined whether the trial court properly considered the Parker/Electroplating factors and whether its denial warranted the ordinary presumption of reasonableness or required de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Claffey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's denial of judicial diversion is entitled to the Bise presumption of reasonableness | Trial court properly considered applicable factors; apply abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness | Trial court unduly relied on irrelevant facts (victims’ deaths and prescription drug use); presumption should not apply and appellate court should review de novo | Presumption did not apply because the trial court unduly considered irrelevant facts; de novo review required and diversion granted |
| Whether a victim’s death may alone justify denying judicial diversion | Death and deterrence support denying diversion in this case | Death alone is not a permissible sole basis; statute allows diversion for vehicular homicide | Court held a victim’s death cannot be the sole basis; trial court unduly relied on deaths in denying diversion |
| Whether the trial court permissibly relied on the defendant’s prescription drug use to deny diversion | Drug use justified deterrence rationale | Expert toxicologist showed no evidence of impairment; State did not present evidence that drugs caused impairment | Court found no substantial evidence that medications impaired driving; trial court unduly considered prescription use |
| Whether judicial diversion should be granted | Denial appropriate under circumstances and deterrence concerns | Defendant demonstrated amenability to correction, lack of prior record, stable social/family circumstances, and no evidence of impairment | After de novo review, court granted five-year judicial diversion and ordered reinstatement of driver’s license |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness for sentencing when trial court properly applies sentencing act)
- State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (Bise standard applies to judicial diversion but trial court must weigh Parker/Electroplating factors; failure to do so eliminates presumption)
- State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (enumerates factors to consider in judicial diversion analysis)
- State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (additional factors and guidance on weighing diversion factors)
- State v. Ring, 56 S.W.3d 577 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (limitations on weight to be given victim’s requested sentence when sentencing considerations are statutory)