State of Tennessee v. Susan Renee Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682

In September 2008, a burglary at James McElroy's Greene County residence resulted in about $7,500 in stolen items and gate damage at a largely unfinished, gated property.
Susan Renee Bise was charged with two counts of aggravated burglary and two counts of theft; the jury found guilt on facilitation of aggravated burglary (count1) and on theft of property (counts2 and4), with not guilty on aggravated burglary (count3).
As a Range I offender, Bise faced a sentencing range of two to four years for each offense; the trial court found one applicable enhancement factor and imposed concurrent three-year sentences.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the enhancement finding and reduced the sentences to two years each, concluding the enhancement did not apply.
The State appealed, contending that a trial court may impose any sentence within the statutory range when the sentence aligns with the purposes and principles of the sentencing statute, even if an enhancement factor was misapplied.
The Tennessee Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's three-year sentences, holding that post-2005 amendments authorize broader trial-court discretion and that sentences within the applicable range carry a presumption of reasonableness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of appellate review post-2005 amendments	State asserts abuse-of-discretion with presumption of reasonableness applies within-range sentences.	Bise argues de novo review remains required for misapplied factors.	Abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness governs within-range sentences.
Effect of misapplied enhancement factors	State contends misapplication does not void a within-range sentence.	Bise argues misapplied factors require reversal or remand.	Misapplication does not invalidate the sentence if other statutory purposes are served.
Within-range reasonableness of three-year sentences	State: sentences within range may be sustained under advisory factors.	Bise: trial court's misapplication requires de novo correction.	Three-year sentences within range are reasonable and should be upheld.
Impact of 2005 amendments on presumptive/minimum sentencing	State argues amendments provide broader discretion and remove rigid presumptions.	Bise emphasizes continued concern with proper factor weighing.	Amendments render advisory minimums and enhancement factors; presumption of reasonableness applies to within-range sentences.

State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (advisory factors broaden trial-court discretion; de novo review narrowed)
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008) (upheld within-range sentences despite misapplied factors)
State v. Cross, 362 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review with presumption of reasonableness; factors advisory)
Gomez v. State (Gomez II), 239 S.W.3d 733 (Tenn. 2007) (post-Booker review; whether presumptive sentence increases were constitutional)
Gomez v. Tennessee (Gomez I), 163 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. 2005) (Blakely/Apprendi framework; pre-2005 presumptive sentence analysis)
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (U.S. 2004) (Sixth Amendment requires jury finding of facts increasing punishment)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2005) (Guidelines advisory; establishes reasonableness review and de-emphasizes mandatory guidelines)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing maximum penalty must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (U.S. 2007) (presumption of reasonableness for within-Guidelines sentences; states-based review)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard for federal sentencing; totality of circumstances)