State of Tennessee v. Thomas A. Isbell - Concurring ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
    AT NASHVILLE
    January 12, 2016 Session
    STATE OF TENNESSEE v. THOMAS A. ISBELL
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Maury County
    No. 22225    Stella L. Hargrove, Judge
    No. M2015-00587-CCA-R3-CD – Filed March 4, 2016
    _____________________________
    THOMAS T. WOODALL, P.J., concurring.
    I concur in all portions of the majority opinion except the conclusion that the trial
    court did not violate the holding in Mitchell v. U.S., 
    526 U.S. 314
     (1999). In Mitchell, the
    Supreme Court held,
    By holding [the defendant’s] silence against her in determining the facts
    of the offense at the sentencing hearing, the [trial court] imposed an
    impermissible burden on the exercise of the constitutional right against
    compelled self-incrimination.
    
    Id. at 330
    .
    As noted in the majority opinion, the trial court stated in open court when making
    her sentencing decision:
    [I]t is this Court’s position that we never got the truth of what happened.
    We never got to the truth in this courtroom of what happened to baby
    [M.I.].
    ....
    We don’t know what happened, but we know two people who know what
    happened and that would be [Defendant] and the mother. The rest of us
    don’t know.
    ....
    And so we don’t know what happened, but [Defendant] does. I was
    hoping I might learn today, but I will not learn.
    (emphasis added).
    I am simply unable to agree that the trial court merely commented on Defendant’s
    failure to accept responsibility for the victim’s injury. The trial court stated that
    Defendant refused to tell what happened, and not that Defendant refused to accept
    responsibility for what happened. In my opinion the trial court violated the U.S. Supreme
    Court’s holding in Mitchell.
    However, Defendant has still failed to show that he is entitled to plain error
    review. He has failed to show that consideration of the error is required and necessary in
    order to do substantial justice. State v. Smith, 
    24 S.W.3d 274
    , 282 (Tenn. 2000).
    Defendant received the minimum sentence for his conviction offense as a standard Range
    I offender. He was not eligible for a sentence alternative that did not mandate total
    incarceration. He was eligible to be considered for sentencing as an especially mitigated
    offender. However, even though Defendant was eligible, the trial court acted completely
    within its statutory discretion by not sentencing Defendant as an especially mitigated
    offender. See State v. Bise, 
    380 S.W.3d 682
    , 707 (Tenn. 2012). Under Bise, Defendant’s
    sentence as a standard offender is presumed reasonable. 
    Id.
    Accordingly, I agree that Defendant is not entitled to plain error review.
    ____________________________________________
    THOMAS T. WOODALL, PRESIDING JUDGE
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M2015-00587-CCA-R3-CD

Judges: Presiding Judge Thomas T. Woodall

Filed Date: 3/4/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/4/2016