State of Tennessee v. Tony Anthony Hatley, W2016-01802-CCA-R3-CD

Defendant Tony Hatley pled guilty to theft of property $1,000–$10,000 (Class D felony) and possession of drug paraphernalia (misdemeanor); effective sentence negotiated at eight years, manner of service reserved for sentencing court.
Offense facts: at Walmart Hatley removed a car seat from a box, refilled the box with higher-value items (~$1,221.43), removed security sensors, re-taped the box, and attempted to leave; he admitted recent heroin use and possessed a glass pipe.
Hatley had extensive criminal history: 36 prior convictions (including many theft-related), multiple arrests across states, and long-term substance abuse; limited verified employment history.
Hatley sought alternative (probation) based on rehabilitation efforts: completed a 28-day treatment program, sober for ~1 year, relocated to Maryland, employed, and claimed amenability to supervision.
Trial court denied full probation for the theft conviction (Case No. 8594) citing Hatley’s long criminal history and the circumstances of the offense; the court suspended a separate conviction (failure to appear) but ordered service of the eight-year sentence at 45%.
On appeal, Hatley argued the court erred by imposing confinement rather than an alternative sentence; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying alternative sentence/probation for the Class D felony theft	The State argued confinement appropriate given Hatley’s extensive criminal history, prior unsuccessful interventions, and offense facts (brazen shoplifting while intoxicated)	Hatley argued probation was appropriate because there was no bodily injury, victim not permanently deprived, and he is amenable to rehabilitation (treatment completed, sober, employed)	Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; denial of full probation upheld based on criminal history and offense circumstances

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (establishes standard of appellate review for within-range sentences and presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (applies Bise standard to decisions on probation and alternative sentences)
State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335 (Tenn. 2008) (explains that defendants are not presumptively favorable candidates for alternative sentencing)
State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2014) (per curiam order noting trial court’s decision will stand unless it wholly departs from statutory considerations)
State v. Goode, 956 S.W.2d 521 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) (factors to consider when evaluating suitability for probation)
State v. Boggs, 932 S.W.2d 467 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996) (defendant bears burden to show suitability for probation)
State v. Bingham, 910 S.W.2d 448 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995) (probation must serve ends of justice and public interest)
State v. Davis, 940 S.W.2d 558 (Tenn. 1997) (probation should not unduly depreciate the seriousness of the offense)