Background
Brian Phillips was serving a three-year supervised-probation sentence after pleading guilty in case number 120731 to two counts of aggravated assault. His probation conditions included completing a treatment program, avoiding contact with specified family members, staying away from their property, and obeying the law. A probation-violation warrant was issued after Phillips was arrested for shoplifting and failed to report the citation, and it was later amended to include new charges arising from a February 2025 incident.
In case number 130233, Phillips pleaded guilty as a Range II multiple offender to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of evading arrest. The State’s factual basis described Phillips threatening and charging at his sister with rebar, then leading police on a high-speed chase during which he drove into oncoming traffic, endangered other motorists, nearly struck an officer, damaged a patrol vehicle, and resisted arrest. Phillips received concurrent sentences of eight years for each aggravated assault and four years for evading arrest, with the manner of service left to the trial court.
At a combined sentencing and probation-revocation hearing, Phillips attributed the incident to a substance-related blackout and sought inpatient treatment, citing his addiction, mental-health issues, prior period of sobriety, and desire to participate in his autistic son’s life. The trial court instead ordered incarceration on the new eight-year sentence and revoked the earlier three-year probationary sentence, directing that the sentences run concurrently.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying alternative sentencing. Phillips was a Range II multiple offender and therefore was not considered a favorable candidate for an alternative sentence under the applicable advisory sentencing guideline. He also bore the burden of establishing that probation would serve the interests of justice, the public, and himself.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court properly considered the seriousness and circumstances of Phillips’s conduct, his extensive record of four prior felony convictions and eleven misdemeanor convictions, the danger his actions posed to the public, and the failure of earlier community-based sentences. The presentence report showed four probation violations and three prior revocations. Although Phillips argued that the trial court ignored his addiction, mental health, and potential for rehabilitation, the record showed that the court considered the relevant evidence and defense arguments before finding incarceration necessary to protect the community.
Phillips did not challenge the length of his sentence or the consequence imposed for revoking probation. The appellate court therefore treated any challenge to the revocation consequence as waived and addressed only the denial of alternative sentencing for the new eight-year sentence.
Key Takeaways
- A within-range decision denying probation or another alternative sentence receives a presumption of reasonableness when the trial court applies the relevant sentencing principles.
- A Range II multiple offender is not treated as a favorable candidate for alternative sentencing under Tennessee’s advisory sentencing guideline.
- An extensive criminal history, dangerous offense conduct, and repeated failures on probation supported confinement despite Phillips’s requests for addiction and mental-health treatment.
- An appellate issue is waived when the defendant expressly declines to challenge it, as Phillips did regarding the consequence imposed for his probation revocation.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference Tennessee appellate courts give trial judges when the sentencing record addresses the statutory considerations and explains why confinement is warranted. Evidence of treatment needs and rehabilitation potential does not require an alternative sentence when the defendant’s conduct presents a serious public-safety risk and less restrictive measures have repeatedly failed.
For appellate counsel, the opinion also underscores the importance of clearly preserving each sentencing issue. By limiting his argument to incarceration on the new convictions, Phillips forfeited appellate review of the trial court’s separate decision to require service of the revoked probationary sentence.