IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

Assigned on Briefs March 3, 2015

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. AMBER RENEE TERRY

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardin County

No. 9813 C. Creed McGinley, Judge

No. W2014-01628-CCA-R3-CD - Filed April 13, 2015

Defendant, Amber Renee Terry, pled guilty to theft of property valued at $10,000 or 

more and official misconduct and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of three 

years, suspended to supervised probation. After a hearing, the trial court denied judicial 

diversion. Upon our review of the record, we determine that the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion in denying judicial diversion. Therefore, the judgments of the trial court are 

affirmed.

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

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERT W.

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

Guy T. Wilkinson, District Public Defender, Camden, Tennessee, for the appellant, 

Amber Renee Terry.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Tracy L. Alcock, Assistant 

Attorney General; Matthew Stowe, District Attorney General; and Joshua Turnbow, 

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

OPINION

Factual Background

On November 18, 2013, the Hardin Country Grand Jury indicted Defendant for 

one count of theft of property valued at $10,000 or more and one count of official 

misconduct. Defendant stole money from the Hardin County Circuit Court Clerk‟s 
- 3 -

Office, her then-employer, during a period from March to August 2012.1 On May 15, 

2014, Defendant pled guilty to the charged offenses. A sentencing hearing was held on 

July 28, 2014, to determine Defendant‟s eligibility for judicial diversion and the amount 

of restitution to be paid. 

At the hearing, Defendant testified that she had moved to Indiana and was 

currently employed with a medical supply company. She earned an hourly wage of $9.50 

and worked between 48 and 60 hours per week. She had paid the administrative fee and 

had saved $2,000 to put toward court costs and restitution. Defendant requested that the 

trial court take into consideration that this was her only “scrape” with the law, that she 

had admitted her guilt, and that she had cooperated throughout the investigation. The 

State asked the court to consider that Defendant had been in a position of trust with 

taxpayer money and that she had abused that trust multiple times over the course of 

several months. The presentence report was entered into evidence.

After the hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard 

offender, to three years for theft of property and one year for official misconduct, to be 

served concurrently on supervised probation. Defendant was ordered to pay restitution in 

the amount of $13,539. The trial court denied judicial diversion. Defendant filed a 

timely notice of appeal.

Analysis

On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying judicial 

diversion. The State responds that the trial court properly exercised its discretion and 

imposed a sentence that was consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. 

We agree with the State.

When a defendant challenges the length, range, or manner of service of a sentence, 

this Court reviews the trial court‟s sentencing decision under an abuse of discretion 

standard with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 

(Tenn. 2012); State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn. 2012). This presumption applies 

to “within-range sentencing decisions that reflect a proper application of the purposes and 

principles of the Sentencing Act.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 707. This same standard of 

review applies to the trial court‟s decision to grant or deny judicial diversion. State v. 

King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 325 (Tenn. 2014).

 

1 The summary of the facts read into the record during the plea hearing were referenced during 

the sentencing hearing, but the transcript of the plea hearing is not included in the record on appeal. The 

record is, however, sufficient for a meaningful and appropriate review under an abuse of discretion 

standard, granting a presumption of reasonableness. See State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 279 (Tenn. 

2012).
- 4 -

Judicial diversion is a form of probation that affords certain qualified defendants

the opportunity to avoid a permanent criminal record, provided that the defendant meets 

certain conditions. See T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A). If a defendant qualifies for judicial 

diversion, a trial court may defer proceedings without entering a judgment of guilty, 

placing the defendant on probation without categorizing the defendant as a convicted 

felon. Id. “Judicial diversion is a form of „legislative largess‟ available to qualified 

defendants who have entered a guilty or nolo contendere plea or have been found guilty 

of an offense without the entry of a judgment of guilt.” King, 432 S.W.3d at 323. 

To be qualified for judicial diversion, a defendant must meet certain statutory 

criteria at the time the defendant committed the offense, including having never been 

previously convicted of a felony or Class A misdemeanor for which a sentence of 

confinement is served and having never been previously granted judicial or pretrial 

diversion. See T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(B)(i). “Eligibility under the statute does not, 

however, constitute entitlement to judicial diversion; instead, the decision of whether to 

grant or deny judicial diversion is entrusted to the discretion of the trial court.” King, 432 

S.W.3d at 323. The trial court must consider several common law factors:

“(a) The accused‟s amenability to correction, (b) the circumstances of the 

offense, (c) the accused‟s criminal record, (d) the accused‟s social history, 

(e) the accused‟s physical and mental health, and (f) the deterrence value to 

the accused as well as others. The trial court should also consider whether 

judicial diversion will serve the ends of justice—the interests of the public 

as well as the accused.”

Id. at 326 (quoting State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. 1996)). “[T]he trial 

court must weigh the factors against each other and place an explanation of its ruling on 

the record.” Id. (citing State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. 1999)). 

When the trial court considers the common law factors, “specifically identifies the 

relevant factors, and places on the record its reasons for granting or denying judicial 

diversion,” then this Court will “apply a presumption of reasonableness and uphold the 

grant or denial so long as there is any substantial evidence to support the trial court‟s 

decision.” Id. at 327. Our supreme court has explained:

Although the trial court is not required to recite all of the Parker and 

Electroplating factors when justifying its decision on the record in order to 

obtain the presumption of reasonableness, the record should reflect that the 

trial court considered the Parker and Electroplating factors in rendering its 
- 5 -

decision and that it identified the specific factors applicable to the case 

before it. Thereafter, the trial court may proceed to solely address the 

relevant factors.

Id. Failure to consider the common law factors results in a loss of the presumption of 

reasonableness, and this Court will either conduct a de novo review or remand the case to 

the trial court for reconsideration. Id.

In this case, the trial court properly considered all of the common law factors in 

determining whether to grant or deny judicial diversion. The trial court found that 

Defendant was presumptively eligible, having pled guilty to a Class C felony. The court

found that there were no “flaws” in Defendant‟s prior record, consisting of only one prior 

speeding ticket. The court found that Defendant was amenable to correction in that she 

was already saving money toward restitution. The court found Defendant‟s social history 

as well as her physical and mental health to be “excellent.” However, the court found 

that the circumstances of the crime were not favorable in that it “was a continuing course 

of criminal conduct over a period of time with expressed steps being taken to cover up 

that criminal conduct.” Additionally, the court considered the deterrence value to the 

Defendant and others, finding that it weighed against judicial diversion because

Defendant not only breached the private trust of her employer, but also the public trust of 

the taxpayers. Because of that breach of public trust, the trial court found that judicial 

diversion would not serve the ends of justice. The trial court stated, “[a]s a result of this 

record as a whole[,] the [c]ourt finds [Defendant] is not an appropriate candidate for 

judicial [d]iversion.” The evidence in the record fully supports the trial court‟s 

determination. Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

___________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE