Opinion ID: 1060560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: proof of deterrence supporting incarceration

Text: The State argues that the sentencing court properly denied alternative sentencing to the appellee solely on the need to deter others from committing similar crimes. The Tennessee Criminal Sentencing Reform Act of 1989 recognizes the limited capacity of state prisons and mandates that convicted 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 of rehabilitation shall be given first priority regarding sentencing involving incarceration. Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-102(5) (1997). A defendant who does meet the criteria of section 40-35-102(5) and who is an especially mitigated or standard offender of a Class C, D, or E felony is presumed to be a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing options.... Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-102(6). This statutory presumption of alternative sentencing is not conclusive, however, and the presumption may be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. See id.; State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 169 (Tenn.1991). Guidance as to what may constitute evidence to the contraryor evidence that the defendant is a member of the population for whom incarceration is a priorityis found in Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-35-103 (1997), which states that a court may order confinement when: (A) Confinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant who has a long history of criminal conduct; (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. Both the State and the appellee concede that the appellee is entitled to the presumption of alternative sentencing and that subsections -103(1)(A) and (C) do not apply in the case before this Court. Consequently, the only issue before this Court is whether the denial of probation was supported by sufficient evidence that confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses.