State of Tennessee v. Stephen Gerald Smith, M2015-00261-CCA-R3-CD

Stephen Gerard Smith was convicted by a jury in Franklin County of aggravated assault (Class C), attempted aggravated assault (Class D), and three counts of domestic assault; one aggravated assault count was dismissed by the jury.
The parties reached a global sentencing agreement including related Grundy County pleas; judgments entered initially sentenced Smith as a career offender to an effective 15-year term (60% eligibility).
After sentencing Smith filed a pro se Rule 35 motion asking for a reduced sentence or new sentencing hearing; the State acknowledged it had misclassified Smith as a career offender for the Class C offense.
The trial court granted relief, set aside the Franklin and Grundy County judgments, appointed new counsel, and held a new sentencing hearing; audio recordings of Smith’s jail phone calls were admitted and considered.
At resentencing the court found multiple enhancement factors (prior criminal activity, failure to comply with community release, offense committed while on probation), denied mitigating factors, imposed 13 years for Class C aggravated assault (Range III persistent offender) and 12 years for Class D attempted aggravated assault (career offender), to be served consecutively; misdemeanor terms concurrent.
Smith appealed, arguing the court erred by permitting pro se proceedings at the Rule 35 stage, imposing excessive sentences, ordering consecutive sentences, and violating protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by allowing pro se Rule 35 filing/hearing	Court properly allowed initial pro se filing and then provided counsel; Smith waived by not objecting	Trial court failed to ensure Smith knowingly and intelligently waived right to counsel and improperly let him proceed pro se	No error; issue waived on appeal and, in any event, Smith was represented at the hearing and obtained relief
Whether sentence lengths were excessive / outside statutory range	Sentences were within statutory ranges and supported by proper application of sentencing principles and enhancement factors	Sentences exceeded minimums and were an abuse of discretion	Affirmed; trial court applied Sentencing Act, articulated reasons, and did not abuse discretion
Whether consecutive sentencing was appropriate	Consecutive service supported by Smith’s extensive criminal record and commission while on probation	Consecutive terms were excessive and unwarranted	Affirmed; trial court properly applied § 40-35-115 factors and justified consecutive sentences
Whether consecutive sentencing constituted cruel and unusual punishment	Not disproportionate given prior record and circumstances	Combined consecutive sentences violate Eighth Amendment and Tennessee Constitution	Denied; sentences not grossly disproportionate under Tennessee proportionality review

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of appellate review for within-range sentencing decisions; presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (requirements for meaningful appellate review of consecutive sentences)
State v. Clark, 452 S.W.3d 268 (Tenn. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard and when trial court misapplication of factors does not remove presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (trial court discretion in selecting any sentence within range consistent with Sentencing Act)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (same standard applies to denial of probation/alternative sentence)
State v. Harris, 844 S.W.2d 601 (Tenn. 1992) (Tennessee proportionality analysis for cruel-and-unusual-punishment claims)
State v. Alvarado, 961 S.W.2d 136 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (issues raised first on appeal are ordinarily waived)
State v. Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d 626 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (pro se representation principles)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (appellant bears burden to show sentence impropriety)