Court Opinion

ID: 9897651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:19:36.695379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:56.827878
License: Public Domain

11/07/2023
        IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
                         AT NASHVILLE
                                October 10, 2023 Session

                 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHANDLER GANT

                Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County
              No. 74CC2-2021-CR-443 William R. Goodman, III, Judge
                     ___________________________________

                           No. M2023-00214-CCA-R3-CD
                       ___________________________________

The Defendant, Chandler Gant, pled guilty in the Robertson County Circuit Court to
assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and was sentenced by the trial court to 11 months, 29 days
in the county jail, with 30 days to serve on consecutive weekends and the remainder of the
time on supervised probation. On appeal, the Defendant argues that the trial court abused
its discretion by ordering a sentence of partial confinement. Based on our review, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.

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

JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ROBERT W.
WEDEMEYER and KYLE A. HIXSON, JJ., joined.

Rob McKinney, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chandler Blake Gant.

Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Benjamin A. Ball, Assistant Attorney
General; Robert Nash, District Attorney General; and Jason White, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

                                        OPINION

                                          FACTS

        On May 30, 2021, the intoxicated twenty-four-year-old Defendant, who was a
customer at the Sonic Restaurant where seventeen-year-old victim Brian Alexander
Morales worked as a cook, became involved in a verbal confrontation with other Sonic
employees. As the victim was exiting the restaurant, the Defendant, without warning,
struck him in the face with his closed fist, breaking the victim’s orbital bone, chipping one
of his teeth, and causing lacerations to his face. On August 15, 2021, the Robertson County
Grand Jury returned a presentment charging the Defendant with aggravated assault, a Class
C felony. On October 10, 2022, the Defendant pled guilty to assault, a Class A
misdemeanor, with the sentencing left to the trial court’s later determination.

       At the February 10, 2023 sentencing hearing, the State introduced the presentence
report, which reflected that the Defendant had only one other prior conviction, a DUI in
2018 committed when he was twenty-one. The presentence report further reflected that
the Defendant was a high school graduate, had graduated from a vocational course with a
lineman certification, and was currently studying for his contractor’s license. The
Defendant had been steadily employed since high school and in 2021 had started a
company, Tennessee Erosion Control, which he owned and operated with a business
partner and twenty-one employees.

        The victim testified that on the evening of May 30, 2021, the Defendant came to the
Sonic restaurant with “a lot of energy.” He said that the Defendant and his companions
were making a lot of noise, and the Defendant had to be asked more than once to turn his
music down. The victim clarified that he was working as a cook in the kitchen and did not
initially see or interact with the Defendant. He stated that his fellow employees were
talking about the situation, and that he walked to the front of the restaurant to see what was
happening. When he looked out the window, he saw the Defendant “acting out in some
way.” He could not recall exactly what the Defendant was doing but said that he was not
acting violently but “more playfully.”

       The victim testified that he smiled when he saw the Defendant. The Defendant then
walked up and knocked on the window “a couple of times . . . asking for one [of the
employees] to come out.” The victim said he did not know if the Defendant was asking
for any particular employee, but that no one in the restaurant responded. The victim stated
that as he was later exiting the restaurant, the Defendant suddenly struck him in the face
with his fist. No words were exchanged, and the victim still had both hands on the door
when the Defendant hit him. The victim testified that he took a couple of steps back after
the Defendant hit him. The Defendant was shouting at him and taunting him during that
time. The victim stated that several of his fellow employees ran out to assist, and that they
took him inside the restaurant to help clean the blood from his face.

        The victim described his injuries as a swollen eye, a fractured orbital, a chipped
tooth, and a bitten tongue. He stated that he had his tooth repaired by a dentist but did not
require any surgery. His injuries were quite painful, and it was difficult for him to sleep
due to the amount of swelling in his face and a burst blood vessel in his eye, which was
“very, very irritating.” The victim testified that it took approximately a month for his
injuries to heal. He said that he had never met the Defendant or interacted with him prior
to the time of the assault.
                                            -2-
        On cross-examination, the victim testified that he could not remember if his mother
had filed a civil lawsuit against the Defendant seeking three million dollars in damages. At
the request of defense counsel, the trial court admitted a copy of the civil complaint as an
exhibit to the hearing.

        The victim’s mother, Lindsay Davis, testified that the victim was transported by
ambulance from the restaurant to the emergency room, where he spent approximately four
hours. She said the victim suffered a fractured orbital zone, a broken tooth, a “busted”
nose and eyebrow, and a “shifted” jaw. She testified that the victim was high-functioning
autistic and did not like to be touched, which made his medical treatment an ordeal. She
said the victim experienced “sensory overload” and was both emotionally and physically
spent by the time they got home from the hospital. The victim was unable to sleep that
first night due to the pressure in his face when he attempted to recline, and for the next nine
or ten months, the victim had to sleep upright in a chair instead of in his bed.

       Ms. Davis testified that the victim had his tooth repaired by a dentist, with a follow-
up visit required to replace fillings that had not stayed in place. She said the victim
continued to experience periodic discomfort in his jaw, possibly from grinding his teeth,
which was something he had not done before. She stated that the victim had difficulty
expressing his feelings about the assault and that she had taken him to see a counselor to
help him work through what had happened to him. The victim had worked “very, very
hard to be normal,” and the assault destroyed his sense of security and caused him a
setback. The victim was well-liked by his peers, highly intelligent, and currently in college
earning straight As. However, it had not been an easy task for the victim to overcome the
trauma of the assault. Finally, Ms. Davis expressed her outrage at the Defendant’s
behavior.

       Defense counsel introduced character letters submitted on the Defendant’s behalf
by a number of individuals and asked the court to recognize that the Defendant’s father,
grandmother, brother, and business partner were present at the hearing in his support.
Defense counsel also introduced as exhibits the Defendant’s certificates of completion of
an anger management course and of a drug and alcohol assessment. In a brief allocution,
the Defendant said that he was “sorry and . . . regretful for [his] actions and the damages
that [he] ha[d] caused to [the victim] and his family.”

       Defense counsel argued for a sentence of straight probation, while the State argued
that the offense deserved a sentence involving some period of confinement. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to 11 months, 29 days
with thirty days confinement in the county jail. In recognition of the Defendant’s
employment, the trial court ordered that the thirty days of confinement be served on
consecutive weekends.
                                             -3-
       On February 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.

                                        ANALYSIS

        On appeal, the Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing
“to consider the correct legal standard on whether to consider confinement.” The
Defendant asserts that the trial court failed to properly assess the factors in Tennessee Code
Annotated section 40-35-103, failed to consider the presentence report or the evidence
presented at the sentencing hearing, failed to articulate its reason for ordering 30 days
confinement, and based its order of confinement “on an erroneous assessment of the
evidence[.]” The State responds that “the trial court acted well within its considerable
discretion and did not arbitrarily impose a sentence of partial confinement.” We agree with
the State.

       A sentence imposed for a misdemeanor offense must be specific and in accordance
with the principles, purposes, and goals of the Sentencing Act. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 40-
35-104, -302(b); State v. Cooper, 336 S.W.3d 522, 524 (Tenn. 2011); State v. Palmer, 902
S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tenn. 1995). In determining a defendant’s sentence, the trial court is to
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 the mitigating
and enhancement factors; (6) any statistical information provided by the Administrative
Office of the Courts as to sentencing practices for similar offenses in Tennessee; (7) any
statement by the Defendant in his own behalf about sentencing; and (8) the result of the
validated risk and needs assessment conducted by the department and contained in the
presentence report. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-210(b).

      Sentences involving confinement should be based on the following
considerations:

             (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
       deterrent to others likely to commit similar offenses; or

              (C) Measures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or
       recently been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant[.]

                                             -4-
Id. at § 40-35-103(1). In addition, “[t]he sentence imposed 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[.]” Id. at § 40-35-103(2), (4). A
trial court abuses its discretion in sentencing when it “applie[s] an incorrect legal standard,
or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the
party complaining.” State v. Shuck, 953 S.W.2d 662, 669 (Tenn. 1997) (citation omitted).
The defendant bears the burden of proving that the sentence is improper. Tenn. Code Ann.
§ 40-35-101, Sentencing Comm’n Cmts.

        The Defendant asserts that the trial court failed to consider the relevant evidence
and the applicable law in imposing the sentence of periodic confinement, essentially
arguing that the trial court’s decision was arbitrary. We disagree. The record reflects that
the trial court considered, but rejected, the factors the Defendant cited in favor of a sentence
of straight probation, concluding that the sentence of periodic confinement was necessary
to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense and was no greater than deserved based
on the offense committed. The trial court’s ruling states in pertinent part:

       [The victim] will be forever affected by this. I recognize this . . .

       The Court does have the responsibility though of addressing circumstances
       that enables our society to function. There is no justification that has been
       presented, no testimony of any justification for a . . . twenty-five[-]year old
       [sic] man punching a seventeen[-] year[-] old cook at a Sonic in the face!
       There is no justification for that and that is conduct that society simply cannot
       tolerate.

       The Defendant cited TCA 40-35-103 and it is about sentencing
       considerations and sentences involving confinement should be based on the
       following, and he set forth those. But sub-section (2), the sentence imposed
       should be no greater than that deserved for the offense committed. I think
       that’s kind of where we come on this.

       I am going to commend [the Defendant], he’s apparently--he is not lazy, he
       works. His family is here to support him and the Court can’t address
       compensation. That will be sorted out in the civil case.

       The Defendant has entered a plea to the misdemeanor offense of assault, a
       sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days. I am going to sentence [the
       Defendant] to a term of thirty days. I understand he makes a living. He can
       serve those on the weekends.

                                             -5-
       The record reflects that the trial court appropriately considered the evidence and the
principles and purposes of sentencing in imposing the sentence of periodic confinement.
Accordingly, we affirm the sentence imposed by the trial court.

                                     CONCLUSION

       Based on our review, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                  _________________________________
                                                  JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., JUDGE

                                            -6-