State of Tennessee v. Keeta Burden - Order
This text of State of Tennessee v. Keeta Burden - Order (State of Tennessee v. Keeta Burden - Order) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT JACKSON
AUGUST SESSION, 1996
STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 02C01-9509-CC-00267 ) Appellee, ) ) ) OBION COUNTY VS. ) ) HON. W. MICHAEL MALOAN KEETA BURDEN,
Appellant. ) ) ) JUDGE
(Re-Sentencing) FILED March 26, 2008
Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk
FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:
JAMES H. BRADBERRY CHARLES W. BURSON Branberry, Crowe & MacLeod Attorney General and Reporter P. O. Box 765 Dresden, TN 38225 CYRIL V. FRASER Assistant Attorney General 450 James Robertson Parkway Nashville, TN 37243
THOMAS A. THOMAS District Attorney General
JAMES T. CANNON Assistant District Attorney 414 South Fourth Street Union City, TN 38261-0218
OPINION FILED ________________________
AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 20
JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE ORDER
This is an appeal as of right from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Obion
County, granting Appellant’s motion to modify her sentence, but denying her full
probation. See, Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35. Appellant was convicted upon a plea of
guilty of the offense of theft of property in excess of $60,000, a Class B felony.
Her original sentence, imposed April 17, 1995, was to a term of eight years in the
Department of Correction as a Range I standard offender. The sentence was
suspended except for one year which Appellant was ordered to serve in the
Obion County Jail. A probationary period was imposed for the balance of the
term and restitution ordered as a condition thereof.
On August 7, 1995, Appellant filed a Motion For Correction or Reduction
of Sentence. The sentence was modified to require that Appellant serve only
sixty days in the county jail. The trial judge declined to place Appellant on full
probation. It is from the denial of outright probation for the full eight year
sentence that Appellant seeks relief in this Court. After a careful review of the
record and briefs in this matter we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial
court should be affirmed pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal
Appeals.
W e note initially that this is an appeal from a decision with regard to a
motion to modify or reduce a previously imposed sentence. Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35.
In contrast to the de novo standard of review applicable to sentencing appeals
perfected under Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 40-35-401(d), appeals of Rule 35
decisions are reviewed simply to determine if there has been an abuse of
-2- discretion on the part of the trial judge. State v. Irick, 861 S.W .2d 375 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1993). W e also note that, as a Class B felon, Appellant does not
enjoy the presumption that she is entitled to a non-incarcerative sentence. See,
Tenn. Code Ann. Sec. 40-35-102(6).
There is evidence in this record which would have justified placing
Appellant on full probation. However, the record also reflects that despite her
claims that the theft from her employer was motivated by the desire to provide
bare necessities fro her family, Appellant stole approximately $139,000 over a
three year period. Some of this money was used to pay for a van, collectibles
such as “Dickens Villages”, and gymnastics classes for Appellant’s children.
Appellant’s employers suffered rather severe business difficulties as a result of
Appellant’s actions including mounting debt, impaired credit, and impending
layoffs of other employees.
Given the circumstances it is not difficult to see how full probation could
depreciate the seriousness of the offense. Even were this Court inclined to grant
full probation, the record is sufficient to sustain the trial court’s exercise of
discretion in declining same. Under these circumstances, we will not disturb the
decision of the trial judge and we therefore affirm pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of
the Court of Criminal Appeals.
____________________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUDGE
CONCUR:
-3- ___________________________________ GARY R. W ADE, JUDGE
___________________________________ W ILLIAM M. BARKER, JUDGE
-4-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Tennessee v. Keeta Burden - Order, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-tennessee-v-keeta-burden-order-tenncrimapp-2008.