Opinion ID: 1666730
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The manner in which this matter occurred and the amount involved.

Text: As we have already pointed out there was no violence and the amount involved was not enormous and all was recovered. As the Court of Criminals correctly held in Mattino : This is not to say that the nature or circumstances of an offense could never provide a sufficient basis for denial of probation. Crimes of violence against the person, or particularly heinous crimes might indeed be the controlling factor in a probation determination. But these crimes are likely to be perpetrated by persons whose backgrounds are largely dissimilar to the defendant's. In any case, plainly the crime charged here [petit larceny in Mattino and here] is not of such nature nor the circumstances of its commission such as to constitute a legal barrier to probation. 539 S.W.2d 828-829. The circumstances of the crime were not grossly negative. The young petitioner was verbally enticed, then bribed to commit the offense, wrestled with the decision and finally decided to go along. No physical violence resulted, no firearm was used and the stolen property was recovered.
Deterence is not a statutory factor. Deterrence is not a Stiller criterion. Reliance upon this factor would defeat the whole concept of probation. While the other factors listed in Stiller may or may not be present or applicable or significant in any given case, deterence is a factor which is uniformly present. Thus, even if all factors gravitate in defendant's favor in a given case, probation would be defeated by the fact that to suspend the sentence would destroy the conviction's deterrent value. Reliance on this factor is no more realistic or reasonable than denying probation on grounds that the defendant committed a crime. In fact, the trial judge virtually took that position by stating as one of his reasons for denying suspension to be that he thought the defendant should pay for his crime. This approach by the trial court places retribution above rehabilitation without reason.
Again we turn to Mattino wherein this factor was found to be an improper basis for denial of probation: And to deny probation because the defendant has already been granted a concession in pleading to a lesser offense is likewise unreasonable in light of prevalent plea bargaining practices, especially where, as here, the defendant is a youthful first offender. Plea reduction and other forms of bargaining are as much a matter of convenience to the prosecution as to the defense. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). To suggest, as does the court below, that their use should preclude subsequent probation can only frustrate both the effectiveness of plea bargaining for the prosecution and the possibility of rehabilitation of the defendant by supervised probation programs. 539 S.W.2d 829.
It is not the policy or purpose of this Court to place trial judges in a judicial straight-jacket in this or any other area, and we are always reluctant to interfere with their traditional discretionary powers. However, ours is the task of affording a meaningful review; and where the effect of sustaining the denial of a probation would be to defeat the public policy of the state by placing it within the power of a trial judge to deny probation on a basis outside statutory criteria, and without valid reasons, we are left with no choice but to intervene and act in furtherance of the legislative intent embraced in the statutes relating to probation. We respectfully reverse the decisions of the Trial Judge and the Court of Criminal Appeals and remand to the Trial Court for the entry of an order of probation to include such conditions of probation as the trial judge shall deem fit and proper. Sec. 40-2902, T.C.A.; Stiller v. State, supra . Reversed and remanded. FONES and BROCK, JJ., concurring. COOPER and HARBISON, JJ., dissenting.