State v. Sihapanya, 516 S.W.3d 473

Defendant Kyto Sihapanya rear-ended Naomi Harris on I-40 near Memphis; Harris died as a result.
Sihapanya fled the scene; he was arrested 20–25 minutes later in Memphis.
He pled guilty to leaving the scene involving death (Class E felony) and following too closely (Class C misdemeanor).
Trial court sentenced him to two years in confinement, denying judicial diversion or probation.
Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) majority affirmed the denial of judicial diversion but reversed the probation denial, finding error in relying on unrecorded evidence.
This Court reinstates the trial court’s probation denial and affirms the CCA’s denial of judicial diversion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probation denial was an abuse of discretion	State contends probation denial was proper under sentencing factors.	Sihapanya argues probation denial was improper due to reliance on inappropriate factors.	Probation denial restored; standard abuse-of-discretion with presumption of reasonableness applied.
Whether denial of judicial diversion was improper	State argues trial court appropriately denied diversion.	Sihapanya argues denial should be reversed.	CCA properly deferred to trial court on diversion; denial affirmed.

State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard with presumption of reasonableness in sentencing decisions)
State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273 (Tenn. 2012) (extended Bise to probation/alternative sentences; reaffirmed presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2000) (deterrence basis may justify confinement when record shows deterrence needs and likelihood of impact)
State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651 (Tenn. 2006) (seriousness of offense can support incarceration if outweighs probation factors when deterrence is warranted)
State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1997) (articulates abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)