State v. Thornton

• Decision Date: 14 November 2022
• Docket Number: W2021-01127-CCA-R3-CD
• Parties: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEREMY LYNN THORNTON
• Court: Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JEREMY LYNN THORNTON

No. W2021-01127-CCA-R3-CD

Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Jackson

November 14, 2022

Session September 8, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Benton County No. 2019-CR-86 Charles C. McGinley, Judge

The Defendant, Jeremy Lynn Thornton, was convicted in the Benton County Circuit Court of possession of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, possession of heroin with intent to sell or deliver, simple possession of alprazolam, simple possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and simple possession of diazepam and received an effective ten-year sentence to be served as one year in confinement followed by nine years on community corrections. The State appealed the Defendant's community corrections sentence and this court reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing. On remand the trial court again imposed an effective ten-year sentence to be served as one year in confinement followed by community corrections. The State appeals, claiming that the Defendant is not eligible for community corrections due to his past pattern of behavior indicating violence and pattern of committing violent offenses. Based upon the oral arguments, the record, and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court.

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

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Samantha L. Simpson, Assistant Attorney General; Matthew F. Stowe, District Attorney General; and Michelle Morris-Deloach, Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellant, State of Tennessee.

Kendall Stivers Jones (on appeal), Assistant Public Defender - Appellate Division, Franklin, Tennessee, and Paul D. Hessing (at trial), Camden, Tennessee, for the appellee, Jeremy Lynn Thornton.

JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which J. ROSS DYER and JILL BARTEE AYERS, JJ., joined.

OPINION

JOHN W. CAMPBELL, SR., JUDGE

FACTS

In June 2019, the Benton County Grand Jury returned a six-count indictment, charging the Defendant with possession of 1.35 grams of methamphetamine with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony; possession of .93 grams of heroin with intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony; possession of alprazolam, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of 2.6 grams of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor; possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor; and possession of diazepam, a Class A misdemeanor. The Defendant went to trial in September 2019, and the jury convicted him as charged in the indictment.^[1]

The trial court held a sentencing hearing on November 19, 2019. No witnesses testified at the hearing, but the State introduced the Defendant's presentence report into evidence.^[2] According to the report, the then forty-two-year-old Defendant was a high school graduate and attended Jackson State Community College but dropped out before he completed his associate's degree. The Defendant stated in the report that he had been married to his wife for twenty-two years and that they had three children eighteen-year-old twin sons and an eight-year-old son. The Defendant reported that he had health issues, including high blood pressure and diabetes; that he received outpatient counseling "many years ago" for depression and anxiety; and that he had been taking medications for anxiety and depression during the past three years. The Defendant also reported prior use of marijuana, heroin, methamphetamine, oxycontin, oxycodone, and cocaine and said he had "a problem" with methamphetamine. He stated that he "stayed clean from meth" for seven years but that he last used the drug just nine months prior to the presentence report. The Defendant said he completed thirty days of court-ordered drug treatment at New Life Lodge in 2005 and eight months of court-ordered drug treatment at Hope Ministries Center in 2012. The Defendant said he was self-employed in the construction business.

The report showed the following prior misdemeanor convictions for the Defendant: two 2019 convictions of violating an order of protection, a 2012 conviction of domestic assault, a 2011 conviction of simple assault, a 2010 conviction of theft, a 2010 conviction of marijuana possession, and a 2007 conviction of speeding. In 2012, he violated the probation sentence he was serving for the 2011 assault conviction. The Defendant's Strong-R assessment classified his overall risk to reoffend as moderate and concluded that he had high needs relevant to "Mental Health," "Alcohol/Drug Use," "Aggression," and "Education" and low needs relevant to "Friends," "Attitudes/Behaviors," "Residential," "Family," and "Employment."

The State argued that the trial court should enhance the Defendant's sentences based on his history of criminal convictions or criminal behavior and noted that while he was on bond for the offenses in this case, he twice violated a protective order that had been obtained by his wife. State v. Jeremy Lynn Thornton, No. W2020-00159-CCA-R3-CD, 2021 WL 142171, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Jan. 15, 2021). The State also argued that the Defendant should serve his sentences in confinement. See id. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court sentenced the Defendant to concurrent sentences of ten years for each felony conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for each misdemeanor conviction and ordered that he serve the effective ten-year sentence as one year in confinement followed by nine years on community corrections. Id. at *2. The State asserted that the Defendant was ineligible for community corrections because his prior convictions of assault, domestic assault, and violating the order of protection established a past pattern of behavior indicating violence. Id. at *3. The trial court did not address the prior assault convictions but said the violations of the order of protection were "'collateral'" to his case. Id. The trial court affirmed its decision to place the Defendant on community corrections after serving one year in confinement. Id.

The State appealed to this court, arguing, in pertinent part, that the Defendant was ineligible for community corrections due to his having "'a present or past pattern of behavior indicating violence' and 'a pattern of committing violent offenses.'" Id. (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-36-106(a)(1)(E)-(F)). A panel of this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing, explaining,

While great deference is given to the trial court in sentencing matters, the trial court is required to make minimal findings at best. Here, however, our review of the record reveals the trial court simply placed the defendant on community corrections once the State pointed out that the defendant was not eligible for probation. Contrary to the defendant's claim that the trial court found his criminal history did not amount to a pattern of violence, no such finding was made. Rather, the trial court simply stated that two violations of a protective order were "collateral" issues. Again, we note that the trial court made this finding without any proof presented. Additionally, we are perplexed by the trial court's finding that these violations, which occurred while the defendant was released on bond after his conviction in the instant matter, were "collateral" and not relevant to the defendant's suitability for alternative sentencing, especially one involving release into the community. Not only did the trial court fail to hear any evidence on the nature of the defendant's violations or make a finding as to whether these violations were violent in nature, but it also failed to make any finding relating to the defendant's convictions for assault and domestic violence. Moreover, the trial court failed to make any findings pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 40-36-106 as to how the defendant qualified for community corrections. Based on our review of the record, the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of community corrections without making any findings concerning the defendant's violations of a protective order, whether he has a history of violence, and his overall suitability for community corrections. Therefore, we reverse the finding of the trial court and remand the matter for a new sentencing hearing consistent with this opinion.

Id. at *4.

The trial court held the new sentencing hearing on July 13, 2021. The State did not call any witnesses to testify but introduced into evidence certified judgments from the general sessions court for the Defendant's 2011 conviction of assault and his 2012 conviction of domestic assault. According to the affidavit of complaint attached to the judgment for assault, the Defendant physically assaulted his wife, leaving marks on her forehead and causing her to be in fear of further bodily harm. The judgment showed he was charged with domestic assault but pled guilty to simple assault. According to the affidavit of complaint attached to the judgment for domestic assault, the Defendant intentionally hit his wife on her head several times, pushed her down, broke her cellular telephone, and chased her as she was fleeing their residence. The State also introduced into evidence a copy of a 2012 judgment, showing that due to the Defendant's arrest for domestic assault, he was found to have violated the probation sentence he received for his 2011 assault conviction.

The State then introduced into evidence the order of protection form that was filed by the Defendant's wife on March 6, 2019. On the part of the form that asked for the Defendant's wife to describe the abuse, she wrote:

Physical, verbal, emotional &financial abuse.

...