State of Tennessee v. Terry Charles Jordan
M2016-01067-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Jun 27, 2017Background
- Terry Charles Jordan pleaded guilty to felony failure to appear (Class E) and was sentenced to four years (Range II multiple offender).
- The plea arose after Jordan failed to report to begin service of an agreed aggregate sentence for prior meth and firearms convictions; he missed a court-ordered report date in April 2015 and was apprehended months later.
- The presentence report showed multiple prior felony and misdemeanor convictions, including two pairs of drug felonies with identical offense dates (May 2, 2013 and February 20, 2014) and a 2006 Schedule I drug felony resulting in an eight-year sentence.
- At sentencing the court found three enhancement factors: (1) extensive prior criminal convictions/behavior, (8) failure to comply with conditions of community release, and (16) juvenile adjudications that would be felonies if committed by an adult; it found one mitigating factor (no serious bodily injury).
- Jordan argued on appeal that some prior felonies should have merged and thus the trial court improperly relied on them to enhance his sentence to the maximum in range.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying enhancement factor (1) or in imposing the four-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Jordan's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jordan's sentence is excessive because some prior felonies merged | Several prior felony convictions merged (24-hour rule), so the trial court erred in relying on them to enhance sentence to maximum | Trial court permissibly applied enhancement factors; 24-hour merger affects range classification only, not application of enhancement factor (1) | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; merger rule limited to range calculation and valid enhancement factors supported maximum sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes abuse-of-discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness for appellate review of sentencing)
- State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2007) (appellate courts should not disturb sentencing decisions within statutory range absent abuse of discretion)
- State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166 (Tenn. 1991) (defendant bears burden to show sentence is erroneous)