IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

January 28, 2020 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. FREDDIE L. SMITH

Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County

No. 112604 Steven W. Sword, Judge

No. E2019-00999-CCA-R3-CD

The Defendant, Freddie L. Smith, was convicted upon his guilty pleas of four counts of 

identity theft, a Class D felony. See T.C.A. § 39-14-150 (2018). The Defendant pleaded 

guilty as a Range II offender and agreed to an effective eight-year sentence. The manner 

of service of his sentence was reserved for the trial court’s determination. On appeal, the 

Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing incarceration rather than an 

alternative sentence. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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

ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT 

W. WEDEMEYER and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Joshua Hedrick, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Freddie L. Smith.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Courtney N. Orr, Assistant 

Attorney General; Charme P. Allen, District Attorney General; William Bright, Assistant 

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

OPINION

The Defendant’s convictions relate to his involvement in “Felony Lane Gang 

activity.” The grand jury returned a thirty-count indictment, charging the Defendant with 

multiple counts of burglary of an automobile, identity theft, forgery, and felony theft. 

According to the State’s recitation of the facts at the guilty plea hearing, the Defendant, 

along with codefendants James Austin and Antonio Battle, broke into vehicles owned by 

women in order to steal their checkbooks, credit and debit cards, and identification. The 

operation involved forging signatures on the stolen checks and sending women, who

were dressed to look like the victims, to cash the fraudulent checks from the drivethrough lanes at various banking institutions. The Defendant and his codefendants 

03/06/2020
-2-

observed the transactions at the banks and provided assistance to the women when 

necessary. 

Between September 20, 2017, and September 26, 2017, the Defendant and his 

codefendants broke into four vehicles, which were owned by Jennifer Fields, Deborah 

Wolford, Joan Dunn, and another woman whose identity is not relevant to this appeal. 

There were additional automobile burglaries, as well. On September 20, an unidentified 

woman, who used Ms. Field’s stolen identification, cashed a check made payable to Ms. 

Fields for an unspecified amount from a financial account belonging to Michael 

Sinkman. On September 26, an unidentified woman, who used Ms. Dunn’s stolen 

identification, cashed a check made payable to Ms. Dunn in the amount of $1,920 from a 

financial account belonging to Ms. Wolford. On October 2, an unidentified woman, who 

used Alicia McCloud’s stolen identification, cashed a check made payable to Ms. 

McCloud from a financial account belonging to Sharon Mongalon. In another incident, 

an unidentified woman, who used Ms. McCloud’s stolen identification, cashed a check 

made payable to Ms. McCloud in the amount of $1,920 from a financial account 

belonging to Justin and Linda Gilbert.

 

In each incident, the Defendant wrote the forged checks. The unidentified woman 

drove to the banks and cashed the forged checks using the stolen identifications. The 

woman maintained constant contact with the Defendant and the codefendants, all of 

whom acted as police lookouts. They devised a plan to “meet up and switch drivers” to 

aid in a getaway if problems arose at a bank. Upon the Defendant’s arrest, he possessed 

$572, which the State maintained were proceeds from the criminal activity.

At the sentencing hearing, the presentence report was received as an exhibit and 

reflected that the Defendant had previous convictions from Florida, Illinois, and Georgia, 

involving first degree burglary, two counts of driving when his license was revoked or 

suspended, automobile burglary, grand larceny, criminal trespass, vandalism valued to 

$500 or less, an undefined theft-related offense, reckless driving, habitual traffic offender

violation, and criminal impersonation. 

The Defendant reported graduating from high school in 2005, having fair mental 

health, and having excellent physical health, although he had been suffering from stress 

and depression since the 2016 death of his mother. He reported receiving treatment for 

depression during his pretrial confinement but denied taking prescription medications. He 

stated that he first drank alcohol at age twenty-two and that he had used marijuana, 

cocaine, “flaaca,” and “DMA.” The Defendant stated that he entered but did not 

complete a drug treatment program in 2016.

 
-3-

The Defendant reported that his son and two daughters lived in Florida. The 

Defendant stated he had a good childhood and a good relationship with his family. He 

stated that he did not establish residence in Tennessee and was only visiting at the time of 

the offenses. The Defendant reported employment in the service industry between 2009 

and 2012. 

Knox County Sheriff’s Detective Bradley Cox testified that “[f]elony lane gang” is 

a group, usually from Florida, that travels the country and targets vehicles driven by 

women. He said that the group targeted women’s vehicles parked at locations at which 

women were likely to leave personal information inside their vehicles. He noted the 

typical locations included daycares, fitness centers, and parks. He said that participants 

in these groups watched women park and leave their vehicles, that they took the women’s 

purses inside the vehicles, and that they took the stolen items to a hotel. He said that a 

female member of the group was dressed to look like the victims, as depicted in the 

driver’s license photographs, that someone forged signatures on the stolen checks, and 

that the female member drove to a bank to cash the check. He said that the female 

usually went through the drive-through at the bank because the security camera quality 

was not as good as the cameras inside the bank and that the female wore an ear piece to 

communicate with the remainder of the group. He said that the vehicles driven by the 

female were generally stolen or displayed stolen license plates. 

Detective Cox testified that an increased number of automobile burglaries were 

reported around September 20, 2017, which included the burglaries of vehicles owned by 

Ms. Fields, Ms. Wolford, and a third woman whose identity is not relevant to this appeal. 

He said that around September 26, he received a telephone call from a local bank’s fraud 

investigator stating that a fraudulent check had been passed and that the check was tested 

for fingerprints. Detective Cox said that the Defendant’s fingerprints, along with Jennifer 

Nichols’s fingerprints, were found on the check. Detective Cox identified Ms. Nichols’s 

as the woman who cashed the fraudulent check at the bank. Detective Cox said that “this 

activity” continued for approximately seven days and that multiple women passed 

fraudulent checks for the Defendant and the codefendants. Detective Cox identified these 

women as Tosha Partin, Erica Stearns, Barbara Schoop, and Lenise Dowell. 

Detective Cox testified that the Defendant was arrested at a hotel and that the 

room was searched pursuant to a warrant. Detective Cox testified that during the search, 

an Enterprise rental agreement showed that the Defendant’s car was rented in Florida. 

Detective Cox said female wigs with human hair were found, along with multiple 

identifications and credit cards. Detective Cox said that these did not belong to the 

Defendant, the codefendants, and the women who participated in the criminal operation. 

Detective Cox stated that a license plate and a window punch, which he said was used to 

punch out vehicle windows, were also recovered. He said that inside a tissue box the 
-4-

deputies found personal checks belonging to a person who lived in New Mexico. 

Photographs of the items recovered were received as an exhibit. 

Detective Cox testified that felony lane gang criminal activity was distinct from 

“opportunistic” vehicle burglaries in that felony lane gang activity required the use of a 

woman, who drove a vehicle in a bank’s drive-through lane, attempting to cash a 

fraudulent check. He stated that the targeted vehicles in felony lane gang enterprises 

involved female victims who parked their vehicles at daycares, parks, fitness centers, and 

other places at which women are likely to leave their purses inside their vehicles. 

Detective Cox said that felony lane gang had become a problem in Knox County and that, 

during the previous three years, banks had lost approximately $200,000 to $300,000 in 

addition to the victims’ financial losses and personal property damage. Detective Cox 

said that, during the three years he had investigated these types of offenses, he had 

investigated approximately twenty to thirty felony lane gang groups and that he had only 

identified the men from two groups. He said that these offenses occurred at least once 

per month, if not more. 

On cross-examination, Detective Cox testified that, on average, two to five 

automobile burglaries were reported daily in Knox County but that the sheriff’s 

department did not engage in data collection for this type of offense. When asked how 

the sheriff’s department determined a “spike” in automobile burglaries, the detective said 

that “this is just from a day to day.” He said, though, that the frequency of the offense 

usually increased during December. He stated that he did not know the total loss 

attributed to shoplifting and that he did not know how the $200,000 to $300,000 losses 

attributed to felony lane gang activity compared to other types of criminal offenses. 

Kelly Johnson, a fraud specialist at ORNL Federal Credit Union, testified that on 

October 3, 2017, her institution suffered a loss as a result of felony gang lane activity. 

She identified photographs of the drive-through lanes at two credit union locations. She 

said she was notified that, on October 3, a check in the amount of $1,960 had been cashed 

by someone other than the member associated with the account. She said that, on the 

same day but at another location, someone attempted to cash an additional check from the 

same account. She said that although the woman who attempted to cash the second check 

presented the bank teller with Jacqueline Copeland’s identification, the teller did not 

believe the woman in the drive-through lane was Ms. Copeland. Ms. Johnson said that 

the woman drove away without the check and without Ms. Copeland’s identification and 

debit card. Ms. Johnson said that the check was made payable to Ms. Copeland from a 

First Tennessee Bank account belonging to Celeste Critselous. Ms. Johnson said that 

four checks from Ms. Copeland’s credit union account were presented for cashing at 

Sevier County Bank in the amounts of $2,420, $1,930, $2,250, $1,500 and that two First 

Tennessee Bank checks made payable to Ms. Copeland were presented for cashing. 
-5-

Ms. Johnson testified that the credit union described felony lane gang activity as 

involving the theft of a member’s identification, checks, credit cards, and debit cards and 

a person’s posing as a credit union member attempting to cash a check from a different 

financial institution in a drive-through lane. She said that this type of criminal activity 

was “a large problem” because the credit union suffered financial loss when it reimbursed 

members for the fraudulent transactions, which impacted the “overall fees and interest 

rates” for all of the credit union’s members. She noted that the perpetrators were 

apprehended rarely. She said that between 2015 and 2018, the credit union had suffered 

a total loss of $51,655.84.

On cross-examination, Ms. Johnson testified that the manner in which a check was 

cashed was the determining factor in whether the credit union classified a fraudulent 

transaction as felony lane gang activity. She said gender of the victim was not considered 

in this determination. She agreed that on average the credit union lost about $12,913.96

annually from felony lane gang activity and said that the credit union suffered higher 

annual losses from credit card fraud. She agreed that perpetrators of credit card fraud 

were arrested more frequently than those who participated in felony lane gang activity. 

In an allocution, the Defendant noted the significant impact of his mother’s death 

and said he used controlled substances and drank alcohol to cope. He said that he made 

poor choices following his mother’s death, that he associated with the “wrong group of 

friends,” and that he had not been in a “right state of mind.” He stated that he pleaded 

guilty because he regretted his conduct and wanted to take responsibility for what he had 

done. He said that he had “been going through a lot and my family want me home.” The 

court noted the Defendant had been in confinement for 605 days, and the Defendant said, 

“It’s been a lot to deal with 'cause I didn’t get to properly grieve my mother.” 

The trial court determined that the Defendant’s criminal history consisted only of 

property crimes and noted that crimes of violence were more favored for confinement. 

The court determined that the Defendant’s history of felony property crimes began in 

2007, that the Defendant had five burglary- and theft-related convictions, that the 

convictions spanned four states and ten years. The court found that although the 

Defendant’s criminal history was not “shockingly long,” the Defendant had a long 

criminal history warranting confinement. The court determined the circumstances of the 

offense did not warrant confinement because the Defendant did not threaten anyone 

during the commission of the offenses and because a significant amount of money had 

not been stolen, although the amounts were significant to the banks and credit unions. 

The trial court determined that the State had presented sufficient evidence showing 

that confinement was necessary to provide an effective deterrent to others who might 

commit similar offenses. The court found, based upon the sentencing hearing testimony, 

that felony lane gang activity was “a problem” in Knox County and that perpetrators were 
-6-

apprehended rarely and that confinement in these types of cases would serve as a 

deterrent to others who were orchestrating “these enterprises.” The court, likewise, 

determined that less restrictive means than confinement had been unsuccessful for the 

Defendant, noting the presentence report showed that the Defendant had served time in 

prison, and that the Defendant had not “changed his ways.” 

The trial court found that although the Defendant had a history of marijuana use, 

the record did not show that drug use was the cause of the Defendant’s criminal behavior. 

The court found that the Defendant lacked a potential for rehabilitation, although the 

court credited the Defendant’s statement that he wanted to take responsibility for his 

conduct. The court did not believe that the Defendant had made excuses for his conduct 

but determined that the lengthy criminal history and “failure to respond to being 

convicted outweighs . . . his attitude and desire to change.” The court determined that the 

Defendant had not shown “any propensity” to change his behavior other than when he 

had been incarcerated. 

The trial court determined that, regardless of the deterrence, confinement was 

warranted based upon the “number of folks that have been victimized” and the 

Defendant’s five previous burglary- and theft-related convictions before the present case. 

The court found that split-confinement was insufficient to “meet the ends of justice.” 

The court ordered the Defendant to serve his eight-year sentence in confinement. This 

appeal followed. 

The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his request for 

alternative sentencing. He asserts that the court placed undue weight upon his previous 

convictions and improperly relied upon deterrence. The State responds that the court did 

not abuse its discretion by denying probation. We agree with the State. 

The standard of review for questions related to probation or any other alternative 

sentence is an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 

388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). Generally, probation is available to a defendant 

sentenced to ten years or less. T.C.A. § 40-35-303(a) (2018). The burden of establishing 

suitability for probation rests with a defendant, who must demonstrate that probation will 

“‘subserve the ends of justice and the best interest of both the public and the defendant.’” 

State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting State v. Dykes, 

803 S.W.2d 250, 259 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1990)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-303(b); State v. 

Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tenn. 2008).

A sentence is based upon “the nature of the offense and the totality of the 

circumstances,” including a defendant’s background. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 

168 (Tenn. 1991); see State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651, 653 (Tenn. 2006). A trial court 

is permitted to sentence a defendant to incarceration when:
-7-

(A) [c]onfinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant 

who has a long history of criminal conduct;

(B) [c]onfinement 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) [m]easures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently 

been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant[.]

T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C) (2018); see Trotter, 201 S.W.3d at 654. 

The Defendant pleaded guilty as a Range II offender. As such, he was not entitled 

to the presumption that he was a favorable candidate for an alternative sentence. See id. § 

40-35-102(6)(A) (2018).

The record reflects that the trial court denied the Defendant’s request for 

alternative sentencing based, in part, upon the Defendant’s ten-year criminal history and 

because the Defendant had continued to engage in criminal conduct after having served 

previous terms of confinement and probation. See id. § 40-35-103(1)(A), (C). The 

presentence report reflects that, before the present case, the Defendant’s criminal history

spanned three states and involved multiple theft- and burglary-related offenses. The 

Defendant had been convicted of first degree burglary, automobile burglary, and grand 

larceny, along with criminal trespass, vandalism, criminal impersonation, reckless 

driving, driving with a revoked license, and habitual traffic offender. The Defendant’s 

previous criminal history began at age nineteen and continued to age twenty-six. The 

Defendant was approximately thirty years old at the time of the present offenses. The 

Defendant had served time in confinement for his previous convictions, most notably six 

years for first degree burglary and more than one year for automobile burglary, but 

continued engage in burglary- and theft-related offenses. As a result, the record supports 

the court’s determinations that the Defendant had a long history of engaging in burglaryand theft-related conduct, that he lacked the potential to rehabilitate, and that he had 

failed to show a propensity to change his behavior. We conclude that the trial court did 

not abuse its discretion in concluding that the confinement was warranted based upon the 

Defendant’s previous history of conduct and upon the Defendant’s failure to rehabilitate 

after previous terms of confinement and probation. The trial court’s determination in this 

regard alone was sufficient to order the Defendant to serve his sentence in confinement. 

In any event, the trial court also denied the Defendant’s request for alternative 

sentencing based, in part, upon the need to deter others from committing similar offenses. 

See id. § 40-35-103(1)(B). The court credited Detective Cox’s testimony that felony lane 

gang activity had increased in recent years in Knox County and that banks in the area had 
-8-

suffered an estimated aggregate loss of approximately $200,000 to $300,000, which was 

in addition to the victims’ financial and property losses. Likewise, Detective Cox 

testified that although these types of enterprises were increasing in frequency during the 

previous three years, it was uncommon to apprehend the perpetrators. Detective Cox had 

investigated twenty to thirty felony lane gang groups but had only identified men from 

two of them. Additionally, the court credited fraud specialist Kelly Johnson’s testimony 

that ORNL federal credit union’s approximate annual loss from felony lane gang 

enterprises was nearly $13,000 and that the perpetrators were apprehended rarely. She 

testified that this type of activity was “a large problem” because the credit union’s losses 

impacted the overall fees and interest rates for all of the members. Based on this credited 

testimony, the trial court determined that confinement would provide a deterrent to others 

who might engage in these types of criminal enterprises. The record supports the court’s 

determination. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding 

that the confinement was warranted based upon the need to deter others from committing 

similar offenses. 

In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgments of the 

trial court are affirmed.

 

 _____________________________________

 ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY, JR., JUDGE