State of Tennessee v. Tommy Michael Owen
M2020-01375-CCA-R3-CD
| Tenn. Crim. App. | Nov 10, 2021Background
- On Jan. 28, 2019, Tommy Michael Owen confronted his mother and her husband (the victim) during an eviction dispute; Owen fired a pistol and the bullet grazed the back of the victim’s neck. A jury convicted Owen of reckless aggravated assault (Class D felony) and acquitted him of aggravated assault and reckless endangerment.
- Owen had no prior criminal record; he suffers from documented mental-health issues (depression, OCD, social phobia), receives treatment, and his wife and son depend on him for care.
- Trial transcript is not in the appellate record, but the trial court issued a detailed sentencing memorandum summarizing testimony: conflicting accounts about who drew first, evidence of prior threats by Owen, and Owen’s admission he carried a gun and fired without aiming.
- At sentencing the trial court applied the seven Electroplating factors for judicial diversion, found five factors weighed against diversion (notably the circumstances of the offense, social history, mental health, and deterrence), but imposed a two-year sentence suspended to unsupervised probation.
- Owen appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion (challenging the court’s weighing of the circumstances, alleged conflation of mental-health and circumstances, and the deterrence finding).
- The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court properly considered and weighed the Electroplating factors and had substantial evidence to deny diversion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying judicial diversion | State: Trial court properly applied Electroplating factors; substantial evidence supports denial | Owen: Court misweighed factors and should have granted diversion | Affirmed—trial court considered factors, substantial evidence supports denial |
| Whether the circumstances of the offense should have favored diversion (provocation / unusual facts) | State: Despite provocation, Owen armed himself and initiated confrontation, weighing against diversion | Owen: Provocation and unusual circumstances mitigate culpability and favor diversion | Court: Recognized mitigating facts but reasonably found the decision to arm and confront weighed heavily against diversion |
| Whether the court improperly conflated mental-health/social-history considerations with the circumstances factor | State: Mental-health and social-history concerns properly considered (Owen’s known social avoidance, anger issues, therapy) | Owen: Court conflated factors and penalized him for seeking treatment and staying with family | Court: No improper conflation; findings tied to risk from Owen initiating an armed confrontation despite known issues |
| Whether denying diversion serves deterrence and public interest (including concerns about future firearm ownership) | State: Owen refused responsibility and stated he might obtain guns again; denial has deterrence/public-safety value | Owen: Idiosyncratic facts make deterrence value low and court overweighted firearm concern | Court: Reasonable to find limited deterrence if diversion granted given Owen’s stance and testimony; supports denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998) (sets the seven-factor test for judicial diversion)
- State v. Dycus, 456 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. 2015) (explains statutory diversion framework and procedures)
- State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316 (Tenn. 2014) (explains appellate presumption of reasonableness when trial court identifies and applies Electroplating factors)
- State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (eligibility for diversion does not entitle a defendant to diversion)
- State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (discusses standard of review for sentencing and related appellate review principles)