State of Tennessee v. Terrance Lavar Walker, M2016-00687-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Terrance Lavar Walker pleaded guilty to delivery of more than 0.5 grams of cocaine (Class B felony) pursuant to a plea agreement recommending a Range I nine‑year sentence; the trial court reserved manner of service for sentencing.
Offense: undercover CI purchased ~1 gram of cocaine from Walker in a Kroger shopping‑center parking lot within 1,000 feet of a public school. The transaction was recorded and the drugs were concealed in a CD case.
At sentencing Walker presented evidence of recent employment (two jobs), church involvement, family support, and caretaking responsibilities for a special‑needs child; letters from employers and family were admitted.
The presentence report showed an extensive prior criminal history including multiple felony drug convictions, prior alternative sentences (including Drug Court), parole at the time of the offense, and prior failures of less restrictive measures.
The trial court denied alternative (probated/suspended) sentencing, citing: repeated unsuccessful use of alternatives, offense seriousness and familiarity with drug commerce, need for deterrence/protection of society, and the fact offense occurred while on parole. Court acknowledged collateral hardships to family but concluded confinement appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by denying alternative sentence	State: denial proper; trial court applied statutory factors and record supports incarceration	Walker: trial court erred in denying alternative sentence and allegedly relied on conclusory deterrence finding	Affirmed—trial court did not abuse discretion; findings supported and presumption of reasonableness applies
Whether trial court failed to weigh mitigating factor that offense did not cause serious bodily injury	State: factor given little or no weight appropriately	Walker: court failed to consider lack of bodily injury as mitigating	Court implicitly considered it but gave it little weight; discretionary weighting not reversible
Whether deterrence finding was conclusory and unsupported	Walker: court’s deterrence rationale lacked evidentiary support	State: Hooper overruled any strict proof requirement for deterrence; deterrence not sole basis here	Court found deterrence among several supported reasons but relied principally on repeated failure of alternatives — no reversible error
Whether sentencing complied with statutory procedure and principles	State: trial court followed 1989 Sentencing Act and considered relevant factors	Walker: challenged application/weight of factors	Court complied with procedures; factual findings supported and sentence affirmed

State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (standard of review for alternative sentencing is abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (addresses use of deterrence as basis for denying alternative sentencing)
State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (every sentencing decision requires case‑by‑case analysis considering offense and defendant’s background)
State v. Fletcher, 805 S.W.2d 785 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing findings when statutes followed)
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (defendant must show probation will serve justice and public interest)
State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (burden on defendant to show suitability for probation)
State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (probation eligibility and burden principles)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (trial court’s allocation of weight to enhancement and mitigating factors is discretionary)