Court Opinion

ID: 9955404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 15:15:03.041977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:40.121019
License: Public Domain

03/28/2024
        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                         AT NASHVILLE
                           Assigned on Briefs March 13, 2024

                    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. TINA BATTEN

                 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sequatchie County
                    No. 2022-CR-78 Bradley Sherman, Judge
                      ___________________________________

                            No. M2023-00323-CCA-R3-CD
                        ___________________________________

Tina Batten, Defendant, entered a best interest plea to aggravated assault and possession
of a firearm while under the influence in exchange for a total effective sentence of five
years with the length and manner of service of the sentence to be determined by the trial
court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court denied judicial diversion and ordered
Defendant to a sentence of split confinement on the basis that granting diversion would
depreciate the severity of the offenses and would have a detrimental effect on deterrence.
Because the trial court failed to consider the proper factors in rendering its decision to deny
diversion and failed to weigh those factors, we reverse and remand the case to the trial
court for reconsideration. On remand, the trial court should utilize the factors set forth in
Parker and Electroplating, weigh the factors against each other, and place an explanation
of its ruling on the record.

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

TIMOTHY L. EASTER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD
WITT, JR., J., and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, P.J., joined.

Mitchell A. Raines (on appeal), Assistant Public Defender – Appellate Division, Franklin,
Tennessee; Vanessa King (at plea), Assistant Public Defendant, Jasper, Tennessee, for the
appellant, Tina Batten.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Senior Assistant
Attorney General; Courtney C. Lynch, District Attorney General; and Steve Strain,
Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

                                         OPINION
       Defendant was indicted by the Sequatchie County Grand Jury for reckless
endangerment, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a weapon while under the
influence of alcohol or a controlled substance in September of 2022. The victim was named
in the indictment as Defendant’s neighbor, Ozark Boston. Defendant was also charged
with public intoxication.

       Defendant ultimately entered a best interest plea to one count of aggravated assault
with an agreed-upon sentence of five years and one count of possession of a handgun while
under the influence of an intoxicant with an agreed-upon sentence of 11 months and 29
days with the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court was to determine the method
of service of the sentence at a sentencing hearing. At the plea hearing, counsel for the State
relayed the factual basis for the plea as follows:

               Your Honor, if this matter came to trial, the State would be calling
       John Simmons with the Sequatchie County Sheriff’s Department as well as
       [the victim] as well as other family members of [the victim]. The State would
       be showing that on April the 9th, of 2021, that [the victim] was going to take
       a vehicle belonging to [Defendant] or her now deceased husband to sell. It
       was by an agreement of the parties that the funds for the sale of the vehicle,
       which I believe was in excess of $20,000.00 dollars, was going to be going
       back to [Defendant and her now deceased husband]. [The victim] was doing
       this to help [Defendant and her husband] out. That she contacted [the
       victim], told him that she did not want to sell the car. He brought the car
       back. After that, [Defendant] threatened to kill [the victim]. She had a .38
       revolver. She fired shots at the house. [The victim] would testify that he was
       in fear of death or serious bodily injuries. They -- law enforcement
       responded. Deputy Simmons went into the residence. He found [Defendant]
       on the back porch of her home. The .38 pistol was there. She was
       intoxicated. They also found spent shell casings in her trash can, and there
       was a -- there were holes in the [victim’s] residence from the shooting. And
       that this all occurred in Sequatchie County.

       A presentence report was prepared. The presentence report revealed that Defendant
was in the Army “10/23/74 to 10/22/76,” serving in Germany, and received an honorable
discharge. Defendant received the National Defense Service Medal and the Good Conduct
Medal. Defendant attended cosmetology school and barber college when she lived in
Atlanta and then drove a school bus off and on for Sequatchie County Schools from 1997
to 2007. She had no prior criminal convictions. Defendant suffered from various health
ailments including osteoarthritis, insomnia, and high blood pressure. Defendant reported
a long history of mental health issues including post-traumatic stress disorder caused by
                                            -2-
being raped while in the Army. Defendant’s daughter reported that Defendant suffered
from psychotic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, mixed obsessional thoughts and
acts, and dysthymic disorder. Defendant took various medications for these disorders over
the years and, at the time of the presentence report, was taking medication for her mental
health. Defendant was married for 45 years before her husband died one month after
Defendant’s incarceration. Defendant had one daughter, who she reported was taking
advantage of her financially. The presentence report contained the following statement
from Defendant:

               I am so very very sorry of offending [the victim] in the manner I did.
       I realize that a firearm should never, never be held or fired unless life is
       threatened. My actions ha[ve] caused a lot of pain and misunderstanding that
       I hope I will never cause again. I will definitely do better in the future.

       The risk needs assessment indicated a Strong-R Assessment of low risk to reoffend
and that Defendant would benefit from a mental health evaluation with follow-up treatment
as recommended, family counseling, and alcohol/drug assessment with follow-up
treatment as recommended.

       The State submitted a sentencing memorandum in advance of the sentencing
hearing. While acknowledging that Defendant was eligible for probation and judicial
diversion, the State argued that an alternative sentence was not warranted. In the
memorandum, the State argued the confinement was necessary to avoid depreciating the
seriousness of the offense and that “confinement [wa]s suited as a deterrent to others likely
to resort to the use of firearms when they feel aggrieved.” The State argued that Defendant
had no hesitation about committing a crime when the risk to human life was high and had
a lack of remorse, having referred to the incident as a “misunderstanding.”

       At the hearing, the victim testified that he and his wife felt “terrified” of Defendant
and that he had emotional injuries as a result of the incident. He described being
“heartbroken over what’s happened.” The victim described Defendant as a “danger to
society” and stated that she needed help. The victim expressed concern if Defendant was
“put back out, . . . , into society, . . . , any time soon.”

       Jody Lockhart, the criminal investigator for the Twelfth Judicial District Attorney’s
Office, testified. Mr. Lockhart was formerly employed by the Sequatchie County Sheriff’s
Office as a patrol officer, investigator, and supervisor. He also held certifications as a
Tennessee State firearms instructor as well as an instructor in various subjects like
“defensive tactics,” interviewing, and interrogation. He testified that during his
employment with the sheriff’s department from 2000 to 2022 the number of cases
involving gun violence increased.
                                            -3-
       Defendant called Frances Barker to testify. Mrs. Barker was a soldier and family
assistance specialist with the Tennessee Army National Guard. While she did not
personally know Defendant, Mrs. Barker testified that there were community care
resources for veterans for both physical and mental health and that Defendant was eligible
for a referral to take advantage of those services through Jim Patterson, the Veterans
Assistance Officer in Sequatchie County.

       The State reiterated the arguments from its memorandum. Counsel for Defendant
argued that there was no proof that Defendant knew other persons were present at the
victim’s house when she discharged the gun. Additionally, Defendant argued that her
sentence could not be enhanced because she possessed or employed a weapon because that
was inherent in the offense. Defendant argued that her age, 67, and lack of criminal
convictions along with her honorable military discharge and lengthy marriage made her a
good candidate for an alternative sentence. Defendant “admitted her wrong and made an
apology” making her conduct “probably more reckless than intentional.” Defendant
argued that she had been in custody from April 9 to the date of the hearing, February 16,
more than 10 months, and that she was at low risk to reoffend. Defendant asked for
probation or diversion or both.

        At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied diversion “on the grounds
that to grant the diversion would have a - - have a detrimental effect on deterrence and
might serve to depreciate the severity of the offense.” Moving on to other forms of
alternative sentencing, the trial court noted that the presentence report was “very thorough”
and that Defendant’s situation was “unique” because she was not “a violent criminal.” The
trial court pointed to the lack of criminal history, save one “simple assault charge in general
sessions court that appears to have been dismissed.” The trial court found that Defendant
was 67, with “mental health issues that need to be addressed” but determined that it was
not in “societal interest” to “stick” Defendant in “what is effectively cold storage with the
TDOC through straight confinement.” As a result, the trial court determined that “the idea
of deterrence is being served somewhat by my denial of diversion.” The trial court noted
that Defendant should be considered a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing
options and ordered Defendant to serve a sentence of split confinement, ordering Defendant
to serve a portion of her sentence in incarceration before being released to supervised
probation.

       After the hearing, the trial court reiterated its denial of diversion. The trial court
noted that Defendant had a lack of remorse after firing a weapon multiple times,
specifically shown when she referred to her actions as a “misunderstanding” that resulted
in “offending Mr. Boston.” The judgment forms reflected that Count 1, reckless

                                             -4-
endangerment, was dismissed in consideration of the guilty plea.1 Defendant was
sentenced to five years for the aggravated assault conviction, a Class C felony. Defendant
was required to serve 11 months and 29 days before release to probation for four years and
one day. In addition, Defendant was prohibited from contact with the victim, his wife, and
his children. Defendant was ordered to receive a mental health evaluation and follow all
recommendations as well as receive an alcohol and drug assessment and follow all
recommendations. Defendant was ordered to meet with Jim Patterson immediately upon
release from jail and to forfeit the “black Rock Island 200 .38 Special” and “H & R Shotgun
1971 12G Pump-action Shotgun” to “SCSD.” On Count 3, Defendant was sentenced to 11
months and 29 days and required to serve 75% prior to eligibility for work release,
furlough, trusty status and rehabilitative programs.

        Defendant appeals.

                                               Analysis

        On appeal, Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion because even
though the trial court cited two factors in denying her request for judicial diversion, it failed
to consider any other factor and it failed to explain why those two factors would outweigh
any of the other considerations for diversion. Defendant urges this Court to conduct a de
novo review and grant the diversion request. The State, on the other hand, argues that the
trial court properly considered both deterrence and the circumstances of the offense in its
“brief” decision to deny diversion and that even if the trial court’s ruling is deemed
inadequate, a de novo review would be appropriate.

       A defendant is eligible for judicial diversion if he or she is found guilty or pleads
guilty or nolo contendere to a Class C, D, or E felony, has not been previously convicted
of a felony or Class A misdemeanor, has not been previously granted judicial or pretrial
diversion, and is not seeking deferral for certain sexual offenses. See T.C.A. § 40-35-
313(a)(1)(B)(i). There is no dispute that Defendant was eligible for judicial diversion.
“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.” State v. King, 432 S.W.3d 316, 323 (Tenn. 2014). 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

        1
         There is no judgment form dismissing Count 1. On remand, the trial court should enter a judgment
form for Count 1, reckless endangerment, if the trial court denies diversion.
                                                  -5-
       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. Crim. App. 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. 1998)).

       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
       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. “The determination as to whether the appellate court
should conduct a de novo review or remand for reconsideration is within the discretion of
the reviewing court.” Id. at 328.

        Here, the trial court’s ruling in its denial of diversion consisted of one sentence: the
trial court denied diversion “on the grounds that to grant the diversion would have a - -
have a detrimental effect on deterrence and might serve to depreciate the severity of the
offense.” In our view, this evinces a failure of the trial court to consider and weigh the
common law factors, resulting in a loss of the presumption of reasonableness in the trial
court’s ruling. In our discretion, we choose to reverse and remand the matter to the trial
court for reconsideration.

                                         Conclusion

        For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. On remand,
the trial court should ensure the record “reflect[s] that the trial court considered the Parker
                                             -6-
and Electroplating factors in rendering its 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. at 327. If the trial court again denies diversion, the trial court
should enter an order dismissing Count 1, reckless endangerment as specified in the plea
agreement.

                                               ____________________________________
                                               TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE

                                             -7-