IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 16, 2016

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JILL ALYSE PATRICK

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sullivan County

No. S63494 R. Jerry Beck, Judge

___________________________________

No. E2016-00741-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

Defendant, Jill Alyse Patrick, appeals her conviction for facilitation of a violation of the 

sex offender registry as well as her resulting sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine 

days to be served on probation after the service of thirty days in incarceration. After a 

review of the evidence, we determine Defendant is not entitled to relief. However, a 

clerical error in the judgment requires our remand to the trial court for correction of the 

error. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed and remanded.

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

Remanded

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D. KELLY THOMAS,

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

Kenneth Hill, Kingsport, Tennessee, for the appellant, Jill Alyse Patrick.

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

Attorney General; Barry P. Staubus, District Attorney General; and Julie R. Canter, 

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

OPINION

An affidavit of complaint was filed in the General Sessions Court of Sullivan 

County on November 1, 2013, alleging that Defendant allowed a registered sex offender, 

Timothy Wayne Smith, to live at her residence with her daughter, Alicia Patrick, and her 

daughter’s three children. Alicia Patrick was Mr. Smith’s girlfriend. The affidavit of 

complaint alleged Defendant violated Tennessee Code Annotated “39-11-403 Facilitation 

12/29/2016
- 2 -

of a violation of a sex offender (40-39-2011)1residential restrictions.” As a result of the 

affidavit of complaint, an arrest warrant was issued.

Defendant was found guilty of facilitation of a violation of the sex offender 

registry in General Sessions Court. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months 

and twenty-nine days, ordering Defendant to serve thirty days in incarceration with the 

remainder suspended to probation. The trial court also ordered Defendant to perform 240 

hours of community service. Defendant appealed to the Sullivan County Circuit Court. 

At the bench trial in Circuit Court, the State set forth proof of Mr. Smith’s four 

prior convictions for carnal knowledge of a minor from the commonwealth of Virginia. 

Mr. Smith registered as a sex offender with the Bristol Police Department on September 

30, 2013, where he provided an address of 1215 Windsor Avenue, Apartment 2, Bristol, 

Tennessee. He was accompanied by his girlfriend, Alicia Patrick, and her mother, 

Defendant. Ms. Patrick had at least one of her children with her at the police department 

that day. According to Lieutenant Debbie Richmond, Mr. Smith, Alicia Patrick, and 

Defendant “were advised” that Mr. Smith could not live with any children because of his 

prior convictions. At that time, Alicia Patrick had three minor children. Mr. Smith was 

not the biological father of any of the children. 

Lieutenant Debbie Richmond had known Defendant for about twenty years and 

saw her enter the police station with Mr. Smith on the day that he registered as a sex 

offender. While Mr. Smith was registering as a sex offender in Tennessee, Defendant 

informed Lieutenant Richmond that Mr. Smith had just been released from jail in 

Virginia for violating the sex offender registry and that she promised the judge that Mr. 

Smith could live with her at her apartment. Lieutenant Richmond admonished Defendant 

that Mr. Smith could not live there if the children were living at her apartment. Mr. 

Smith was actually arrested on the day he registered as a sex offender because he did not 

register in a timely fashion. 

Dannielle Eller, a detective with the Bristol Police Department, testified that she 

was the primary child abuse investigator and maintained the sex offender registry for the 

Bristol Police Department. On November 1, 2013, she went to the residence listed by 

Mr. Smith and issued arrest warrants for all three parties at that location, including Alicia

Patrick, Mr. Smith, and Defendant, because surveillance indicated that all three of Alicia

 

1

The affidavit of complaint appears to contain a typographical error. It lists the sex offender

statute as Tennessee Code Annotated section “40-39-2011.” The proper statute is Tennessee Code 

Annotated section 40-39-211. This statute prohibits registered sex offenders from “knowingly resid[ing] 

with a minor” among other things. 
- 3 -

Patrick’s minor children were probably living at the residence.2 When she arrived, all 

three adults and the three minor children were inside the apartment. Detective Eller also 

observed children’s clothing, car seats, diapers, and a “Pack’n’Play” portable crib at the 

apartment. A school bus driver confirmed that she dropped at least one of Alicia

Patrick’s children off after school at the same apartment from September of 2013 until 

“after Christmas.” The driver waited until the child went inside the apartment because 

the child was in kindergarten. 

Defendant testified that Alicia Patrick was in a romantic relationship with Mr. 

Smith while he was in jail in Virginia. Mr. Smith got out of jail and “walked the streets 

for a few days” before Defendant “felt sorry for him and . . . let him register at [her] 

house.” Defendant testified that Alicia Patrick and her three children were staying at

Abuse Alternatives emergency shelter around this time. Records from Abuse 

Alternatives confirmed that Alicia Patrick and her three children stayed at the shelter 

from August 6, 2013, until September 16, 2013. Defendant claimed that her daughter and 

children went “to a friend’s house” after they left the shelter. This friend was identified 

only as “Christy.” 

Mr. Smith registered as a sex offender on September 30. Defendant agreed that 

she and Alicia Patrick, along with two of Alicia Patrick’s children, accompanied Mr. 

Smith to the police station to register. Defendant denied that Lieutenant Richmond told 

her Mr. Smith was not allowed to live at the house with the children. Mr. Smith was 

arrested and spent a few days in jail. Defendant eventually “bonded [Mr. Smith] out, 

[and] he came to [her] house.” This occurred around October 10. 

By this time, Defendant claimed Alicia Patrick and her children were staying with 

“Christy.” Defendant explained that Alicia Patrick would drop off her children to “hang 

[at the house] during the day.” The oldest child would “go to school” and the two 

younger children would watch television or play. After school, the oldest child would 

ride the bus to the apartment, where the children would “hang around,” “eat supper,” and 

take baths. “Christy” always came to get Alicia Patrick and the children before bed time, 

around seven or eight o’clock, and they would spend the night at “Christy’s” residence. 

Defendant was under the impression that Alicia Patrick was “taking care of everything” 

so she got up each morning to go to work at McDonald’s at 4:00 a.m. Defendant testified 

that Alicia Patrick and the children were not present at her apartment at that time. 

Defendant claimed that she tried to ask Lieutenant Richmond about Mr. Smith’s 

“residential rules” due to his sex offender status but that Lieutenant Richmond actually 

declined to tell her the rules because she was “not the offender.” Defendant knew that 

 

2

Lieutenant Richmond witnessed at least one of Alicia Patrick’s children getting off the school 

bus at Defendant’s apartment and entering the apartment.
- 4 -

Mr. Smith’s conviction had to do with a “little girl” and claimed that one of her rules was 

that Defendant “was never to be alone in [her] house with those kids” or “lay a hand on 

those children.” Defendant recalled that Mr. Smith tried to clothesline one of the children 

while the child was running through the house but that she “stopped” and “threatened” 

him. Defendant insisted that Mr. Smith did not spend the night with the children at her 

house but admitted that the children spent the night with Mr. Smith in Virginia.

The trial judge found Defendant guilty of the offense. The trial judge ordered a 

background investigation to be completed prior to sentencing. At the sentencing hearing, 

the trial court noted Defendant’s “minor prior record” of one conviction for misdemeanor 

theft in 1989. The trial court sentenced Defendant to eleven months and twenty-nine 

days with a “30% release” and required her “to serve 30 days in the county jail as a 

condition of being put on probation.” 

Defendant filed a motion for new trial. At the hearing, counsel for Defendant 

argued that Defendant completed all 240 hours of community service as ordered by the 

General Sessions Court and had remained on probation for nearly two years prior to 

being sentenced. The trial court informed Defendant that “[s]he took a de novo appeal” 

and “when it came [to Circuit Court, the court] had the same options that . . . the [general] 

sessions judge had.” The trial court denied the motion for new trial and informed 

Defendant she was “going to have to serve her 30 days.” Defendant filed a timely notice 

of appeal. She asks this Court to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to 

support the conviction and whether the trial court erred in sentencing. 

Analysis

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Defendant argues on appeal that the evidence was not sufficient to support the 

conviction for facilitation of a violation of the sex offender registry “because the 

evidence failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the children resided with 

[Mr.] Smith.” Specifically, she insists that the proof did not establish that the children 

were at the residence other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The State 

disagrees.

When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court is obliged 

to review that claim according to certain well-settled principles. The relevant question is 

whether any rational trier of fact could have found the accused guilty of every element of 

the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. See Tenn. R. App. P. 13(e); Jackson v. Virginia, 

443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). The jury’s verdict replaces the presumption of innocence with 

one of guilt; therefore, the burden is shifted onto the defendant to show that the evidence 

introduced at trial was insufficient to support such a verdict. State v. Reid, 91 S.W.3d 
- 5 -

247, 277 (Tenn. 2002). The prosecution is entitled to the “‘strongest legitimate view of 

the evidence and to all reasonable and legitimate inferences that may be drawn 

therefrom.’” State v. Goodwin, 143 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tenn. 2004) (quoting State v. 

Smith, 24 S.W.3d 274, 279 (Tenn. 2000)). Questions concerning the “‘credibility of the 

witnesses, the weight to be given their testimony, and the reconciliation of conflicts in the 

proof are matters entrusted to the jury as the trier of fact.’” Wagner, 382 S.W.3d at 297 

(quoting State v. Campbell, 245 S.W.3d 331, 335 (Tenn. 2008)). “‘A guilty verdict by 

the jury, approved by the trial court, accredits the testimony of the witnesses for the State 

and resolves all conflicts in favor of the prosecution’s theory.’” Reid, 91 S.W.3d at 277 

(quoting State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997)). It is not the role of this 

Court to reweigh or reevaluate the evidence, nor to substitute our own inferences for 

those drawn from the evidence by the trier of fact. Id. The standard of review is the 

same whether the conviction is based upon direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a 

combination of the two. State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 379 (Tenn. 2011); State v. 

Hanson, 279 S.W.3d 265, 275 (Tenn. 2009). 

The judgment reflects that Defendant was convicted of violating Tennessee Code 

Annotated sections 39-11-403 and 40-39-208.3 This appears to be a clerical error. The 

affidavit of complaint and the proof presented at trial show that Mr. Smith’s violation that 

Defendant facilitated was based on Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-39-211. This 

statute provides the requirements for establishment of residences and employment for 

sexual offenders. As related to the case herein, the statute prohibits a sex offender from 

“knowingly resid[ing] with a minor” unless the minor is the child of the offender. “A 

person is criminally responsible for the facilitation of a felony, if, knowing that another 

 

3

Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-39-208 is entitled “Violations; Certification” and states, 

in pertinent part:

(a) It is an offense for an offender to knowingly violate any provision of this part. 

Violations shall include, but not be limited to:

(1) Failure of an offender to timely register or report;

(2) Falsification of a TBI registration form;

(3) Failure to timely disclose required information to the designated law 

enforcement agency;

(4) Failure to sign a TBI registration form;

(5) Failure to pay the annual administrative costs, if financially able;

(6) Failure to timely disclose status as a sexual offender or violent sexual 

offender to the designated law enforcement agency upon reincarceration;

(7) Failure to timely report to the designated law enforcement agency upon 

release after reincarceration;

(8) Failure to timely report to the designated law enforcement agency following 

reentry in this state after deportation; and

(9) Failure to timely report to the offender’s designated law enforcement agency 

when the offender moves to another state.
- 6 -

intends to commit a specific felony, but without the intent required for criminal 

responsibility under § 39-11-402(2), the person knowingly furnishes substantial 

assistance in the commission of the felony.” T.C.A. § 39-11-403.

The proof at trial established that Mr. Smith was a convicted sex offender who 

was required to register with the State of Tennessee. The proof also established that

Defendant’s daughter, Alicia Patrick, was dating Mr. Smith at the time he registered in 

Tennessee. Alicia Patrick had three minor children. Mr. Smith was not listed as the 

father on any of the children’s birth certificates. Defendant and Alicia Patrick were with 

Mr. Smith when he registered as a sex offender. All three of the adults—Mr. Smith, 

Alicia Patrick, and Defendant—were notified by police that Mr. Smith could not live in 

the apartment with Alicia Patrick’s children. Police later visited the address provided by 

Mr. Smith as his residence and discovered three children, bags of children’s clothing that 

appeared to have been “lived out of,” toys, shoes belonging to children, diapers, and a 

“Pack’n’Play” portable crib. Defendant herself admitted that the children were dropped 

off at the apartment in the morning and stayed there until around bedtime each night. 

The school bus picked up and dropped off the oldest child at the apartment. Defendant 

allowed Mr. Smith to register at her house because he had nowhere else to live. We 

conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find that Defendant knowingly furnished 

substantial assistance in allowing Defendant to reside with a minor. Defendant is not 

entitled to relief on this issue.

Sentencing

Defendant also complains about her sentence. She claims that because there “was 

no physical injury, no monetary loss, or other injury to the children or other parties” and 

because her prior criminal record is “miniscule,” she should have been granted a 

suspended sentence. The State insists that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Misdemeanor sentencing is governed by Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-

35-302(b) and requires a trial court to impose a sentence consistent with the purposes and 

principles of sentencing. T.C.A. § 40-35-302(b). Defendants convicted of misdemeanors 

are not presumed eligible for alternative sentencing, and trial courts are granted 

considerable discretion and flexibility in misdemeanor sentencing determinations. State 

v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tenn. 1998); see also State v. Combs, 945 S.W.2d 

770, 773-74 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996); State v. Williams, 914 S.W.2d 940, 949 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 1995). A defendant convicted of a misdemeanor is not “entitled to the 

presumption of a minimum sentence.” State v. Creasy, 885 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 1994). Moreover, a trial court is not required to hold a sentencing hearing, 

but must allow the parties the opportunity to address the length and manner of service of 

the sentence. T.C.A. § 40-35-302(a). The trial court is not required to place its specific 

findings on the record. State v. Troutman, 979 S.W.2d 271, 273 (Tenn. 1998). 
- 7 -

The standard of review applied in felony sentences, an abuse of discretion 

standard with a presumption of reasonableness, has also been applied to misdemeanor 

sentencing determinations. See, e.g., State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 324 (Tenn. 2014) 

(citing State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 706-07 (Tenn. 2012)); State v. Christopher 

Dewayne Henson, No. M2013-01285-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 3473468, at *6-7 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. June 2, 2015), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 17, 2015); State v. Su Ann 

Christopher, No. E2012-01090-CCA-R3-CD, 2013 WL 1088341, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. 

App. Mar. 14, 2013), perm app. denied (Tenn. June 18, 2013). This standard of review 

applies equally to a trial court’s decision regarding the manner of service of a sentence. 

State v. Caudle, 388 S.W.3d 273, 278-79 (Tenn. 2012). This Court will uphold the trial 

court’s sentencing decision “so long as it is within the appropriate range and the record 

demonstrates that the sentence is otherwise in compliance with the purposes and 

principles listed by statute.” Bise, 380 S.W.3d at 709-10. Moreover, under those 

circumstances, we may not disturb the sentence even if we had preferred a different 

result. See State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 346 (Tenn. 2008). The party appealing the 

sentence has the burden of demonstrating its impropriety. T.C.A. § 40-35-401, Sent’g 

Comm’n Cmts.; see also State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn. 1991).

In imposing a sentence, the trial court must consider the following factors: (1) the 

evidence, if any, received at the trial and the sentencing hearing; (2) the presentence 

report; (3) the principles of sentencing and arguments as to sentencing alternatives; (4) 

the nature and characteristics of the criminal conduct involved; (5) evidence and 

information offered by the parties on enhancement and mitigating factors; (6) any 

statistical information provided by the administrative office of the courts as to sentencing 

practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; and (7) any statement by the defendant in his 

own behalf. T.C.A. § 40-35-210(b). “[A] trial court is free to select any sentence within 

the applicable range so long as the length of the sentence is ‘consistent with the purposes 

and principles of [the Sentencing Act].’” State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 343 (Tenn. 

2008) (quoting T.C.A. § 40-35-210(d)). The principles of sentencing provide that the 

sentence should be no greater than that deserved for the offense committed and should be 

the least severe measure necessary to achieve the purposes for which the sentence is 

imposed. See T.C.A. § 40-35-103(2), (4). 

Trial courts are encouraged to use alternative sentencing when appropriate. See 

T.C.A. § 40-35-103(6). When determining the manner of service of a sentence, the trial 

court should consider whether:

(A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant 

who has a long history of criminal conduct;
- 8 -

(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). The trial court should consider the circumstances of the 

offense; the defendant’s criminal record, social history, and present condition; the 

deterrent effect on the defendant; the defendant’s potential or lack of potential for 

rehabilitation; and the best interests of both the defendant and the public. State v. 

Kendrick, 10 S.W.3d 650, 656 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999); T.C.A. § 40-35-103(5). It is the 

defendant burden to prove that full probation will “subserve the ends of justice and the 

best interest of both the public and the defendant.” Carter, 254 S.W.3d at 347 (internal 

quotation omitted).

The trial court actually held a separate sentencing hearing. At that hearing, the 

trial court considered the pre-sentence report prepared by Community Supervision, Inc. 

which detailed Defendant’s sparse criminal history and completion of 240 hours of 

community service. The trial court also received evidence that Defendant was successful 

on probation from the time of her conviction in General Sessions Court through her 

appeal to Circuit Court. The trial court weighed this against Defendant’s prior criminal 

history and the facts of the offense and sentenced Defendant to a within-range sentence of 

eleven months and twenty-nine days, ordering Defendant to serve thirty days in 

incarceration before being released to probation. The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion. Defendant is not entitled to relief on this issue.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. The case is 

remanded for correction of the clerical error in the judgment to reflect Defendant’s 

conviction of facilitation of a violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-39-211. 

____________________________________

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE