IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs February 25, 2020

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BLAKE GREGG

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Sullivan County

Nos. S68435, S68680, S69303, S69502 James F. Goodwin, Jr., Judge

No. E2019-00843-CCA-R3-CD

The defendant, Blake Gregg, appeals from his Sullivan County Criminal Court guiltypleaded convictions in multiple case numbers of possession of methamphetamine, two 

counts of possession with intent to sell .5 grams or more of methamphetamine, 

possession of oxycodone, possession of buprenorphine, possession of clonazepam, 

introduction of contraband into a penal institution, domestic assault, aggravated domestic 

assault, evading arrest, driving under the influence (“DUI”), two counts of driving on a 

suspended license, one count of second or subsequent offense of driving on a suspended 

license, driving while in possession of methamphetamine, theft of property valued at 

$1,000 or more but less than $2,500, four counts of possession of drug paraphernalia, 

running a stop sign, violating the vehicle light law, and two counts of violating the 

financial responsibility law. In this appeal, the defendant asserts that the trial court erred 

by ordering that he serve the 10-year sentence imposed in case number S68680 in 

confinement. Discerning no error, we affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgments of the Criminal Court Affirmed

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY 

THOMAS, JR., and, ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY,JR., JJ., joined.

Wesley A. Mink (on appeal) and Steve Bagby (at trial), Assistant District Public 

Defenders, for the appellant, Blake Gregg.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Ruth Anne Thompson, Assistant 

Attorney General; Barry P. Staubus, District Attorney General; and Kristen Rose, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

03/05/2020
-2-

OPINION

The convictions in this case arose from a global plea agreement to dispose 

of the charges in Sullivan County case numbers S68435, S68680, S69303, and S69502. 

We outline the original charges and conviction offenses below:

Case Number Charged Offense Conviction Offense/Sentence

S68435 Driving on a suspended license Same, six months

S68435 Violating financial 

responsibility law

Same, fine only

S68435 Possession of 

methamphetamine

Same, 11 months and 29 days

S68435 Introduction of contraband into 

a penal facility

Same, three years

S68680 Possession with intent to sell or 

deliver .5 grams or more of 

methamphetamine in a drugfree zone

Possession with intent to sell .5 

grams or more of 

methamphetamine, 10 years

S68680 Possession of oxycodone Same, 11 months and 29 days

S68680 Possession of buprenorphine Same, 11 months and 29 days

S68680 Possession of clonazepam Same, 11 months and 29 days

S68680 Running a stop sign Same, fine only

S68680 Violating financial 

responsibility law

Same, fine only

S69303 Domestic Assault Same, merged with S69303 count 2

S69303 Aggravated domestic assault Same, three years

S69303 Evading arrest Same, 11 months and 29 days

S69502 Possession with intent to sell or 

deliver .5 grams or more of 

methamphetamine

Same, eight years

S69502 Theft of property valued at 

$1,000 or more but less than 

$2,500

Same, two years

S69502 DUI Same, 11 months and 29 days

S69502 Driving on a suspended license Same, merged with S69502 count 

11

S69502 Driving while in possession of 

methamphetamine

Same, fine only

S69502 Possession of drug Same, 11 months and 29 days
-3-

paraphernalia

S69502 Possession of drug 

paraphernalia

Same, 11 months and 29 days

S69502 Possession of drug 

paraphernalia

Same, 11 months and 29 days

S69502 Possession of drug 

paraphernalia

Same, 11 months and 29 days

S69502 Violation of vehicle light law Same, fine only

S69502 Second offense driving on a 

suspended license

Same, 11 months and 29 days

Pursuant to the agreement, the sentences imposed for convictions within each case were 

aligned concurrently to one another, and the total effective sentences for the four cases 

were aligned consecutively to each other, for a total effective sentence of 24 years with 

the manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial court.

At the guilty plea submission hearing, the defendant stipulated to the 

statement of facts contained within the affidavits of complaints in each of the cases. 

Because the defendant does not challenge the factual basis supporting any of the 

conviction offenses, we will not recite them here.1

At the sentencing hearing, the defendant testified that, since being 

incarcerated, he had completed a number of self-improvement classes. He noted that the 

majority of his criminal history occurred following the death of his father and his best 

friend within two weeks of one another in 2016. From that point, he said, “everything 

just spiraled out of control,” and he “did resort to self-medicating.” He acknowledged 

that he lost his driver’s license following a DUI conviction in 2007 and that he “was not 

able due to financial reasons” to have his license reinstated. The defendant read into the 

record a statement he had prepared for the hearing. In the statement, the defendant took 

responsibility for his actions and asked the court to place him in “the TN ROCS 

Program.”2 The defendant said that, following any such placement, he would live with 

 

1

The defendant entered a “best interests” plea of guilty in each of the counts in case number 

S69303.

2

Developed by Judge Duane Slone, the Tennessee Recovery Oriented 

Compliance Strategy (TN-ROCS) Program is a court diversion strategy 

that serves justice-involved adults who have serious mental illness 

(SMI), mental illness (MI), co-occurring disorders (COD) or substance 

abuse disorders and who have low to medium risk factors for reoffending and medium to high needs for substance abuse and mental 

health services. This model provides an option for judges to address the 

needs of defendants who do not meet criteria for recovery court or do not 
-4-

his grandmother. He said that he had two daughters, one who lived with her mother’s 

mother and one who lived with his mother. The defendant testified that a friend had 

offered him a job as a roofer “as soon as I can get the available time.”

The defendant said that, despite having been placed on probation before, he 

had never been ordered to attend any drug or alcohol treatment. He stated that he had 

taken a drug and alcohol assessment as part of a previous sentence of probation and that 

he had taken “some kind of class” but that he had never participated in an inpatient drug 

treatment program.

During cross-examination, the defendant acknowledged that, even without 

the myriad convictions at issue, his criminal history was extensive. He admitted that he 

had violated the terms of probationary sentences imposed in the past. The defendant 

conceded a long history of drug abuse but said that he could not recall from whom he had 

purchased drugs in the past.

The court observed that the defendant “started having a problem with the 

truth” during his testimony, emphasizing the defendant’s statement “that he doesn’t know 

who he bought his drugs from.” The court opined that the defendant was “trying to 

protect somebody” and noted its concern that it would be unable to “fashion some sort of 

an order or a remedy to keep him away from those people.” The court stated that it did 

not believe the defendant’s testimony that he had never been offered drug treatment while 

on probation in the past. Based upon the defendant’s lack of candor as well as “his 

lengthy criminal history” and “his violations of attempts at release into the community,” 

the trial court ordered the defendant to serve the 10-year sentence imposed in case 

number S68680 in confinement and the remaining 14 years of his total effective sentence 

on supervised probation. The court indicated that it would reevaluate the defendant’s 

placement in the TN-ROCS Program following his completion of the term of 

incarceration for case number S68680.

The presentence report established that, in addition to the 24 conviction 

offenses at issue in this appeal, the 31-year-old defendant had more than two dozen prior 

 

want to participate in recovery court. 

TN-ROCS service recipients are ordered by a judge to take part in the 

program. Service recipients must comply with their release plan and 

supervision requirements, as well as appear in court as requested by the 

judge. Service recipients can stay in the community as long as they 

follow the program. Review dockets are held to ensure the service 

recipients are following the program.

https://www.tn.gov/behavioral-health/substance-abuse-services/criminal-justice-services/tn-rocs.html
-5-

misdemeanor convictions. His criminal history spanned the entirety of his adult life.

In this timely appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by 

imposing a fully incarcerative sentence. The State asserts that the record supports the 

denial of alternative sentencing.

Our supreme court has adopted an abuse of discretion standard of review 

for sentencing and has prescribed “a presumption of reasonableness to within-range 

sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and principles of our 

Sentencing Act.” State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 707 (Tenn. 2012). The application of 

the purposes and principles of sentencing involves a consideration of “[t]he potential or 

lack of potential for the rehabilitation or treatment of the defendant . . . in determining the 

sentence alternative or length of a term to be imposed.” T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). Trial 

courts are “required under the 2005 amendments to ‘place on the record, either orally or 

in writing, what enhancement or mitigating factors were considered, if any, as well as the 

reasons for the sentence, in order to ensure fair and consistent sentencing.’” Bise 380 

S.W.3d at 698-99 (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(e)). The abuse-of-discretion standard of 

review and the presumption of reasonableness also applies to “questions related to 

probation or any other alternative sentence.” State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 

(Tenn. 2012).

Although the trial court must consider the defendant’s potential for 

rehabilitation in determining whether to impose an alternative sentence, see T.C.A. § 40-

35-103(5), “[c]onvicted felons committing the most severe offenses, possessing criminal 

histories evincing a clear disregard for the laws and morals of society and evincing failure 

of past efforts at rehabilitation” are not considered favorable candidates for alternative 

sentencing, id. § 40-35-102(5)-(6)(A).

When a trial court orders confinement and therefore rejects any form of 

alternative sentencing such as probation, split confinement, or periodic confinement, it 

must base the decision to confine the defendant upon the considerations set forth in Code 

section 40-35-103(1), which provides:

(1) Sentences involving confinement should be based on the 

following considerations:

(A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by 

restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal 

conduct;
-6-

(B) Confinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the 

seriousness of the offense or confinement is particularly 

suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to 

commit similar offenses; or

(C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have

frequently or recently been applied unsuccessfully to the 

defendant; . . . .

T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1).

In our view, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering a 

sentence of confinement in this case. The record indicates that the defendant had a long 

history of criminal convictions and that he had frequently failed to comply with the terms 

of his probation. Although the trial court relied heavily on the defendant’s lack of 

candor, the court also specifically considered both the defendant’s criminal history and 

his failure to comply with sentences involving release into the community. The record 

supports the trial court’s finding that measures less restrictive than confinement had 

frequently and recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

_________________________________ 

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE