Date: 07-18-2024

Case Style:

State of Tennessee v. Isaiah Jamal Simmons

Case Number: E2023-01259-CCA-R3-CD

Judge: Robert H. Montgomery, Jr.

Court: IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE (Knox County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter; Katherine Orr, Assistant Attorney
General; Coty G. Wamp, District Attorney General; and AnCharlene Davis and Bryan
Starnes, Assistant District Attorneys General,

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Knoxville Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory

Description:

Knoxville, Tennessee criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with contending the trial court abused its discretion by denying alternative sentencing and by failing to allow the defense to present argument at sentencing
One count of attempted second degree murder, a Class
B felony, aggravated stalking, a Class E felony, two counts of assault, a Class A
misdemeanor, and two counts of harassment, a Class A misdemeanor

The Defendant’s convictions relate to two domestic violence incidents. On May 28,
2019, the Defendant attempted to locate Briousha Price, a former girlfriend, by threatening
to kill her family if they did not disclose her location. On July 2, 2021, while released on
bond from the 2019 incident, the Defendant attacked Destiny Carpenter, another former
07/18/2024
-2-
girlfriend, by punching her face repeatedly and by attempting to kill her by hitting her with
his car. The Defendant was indicted in connection with the May 28, 2019 incident for one
count of aggravated stalking, two counts of assault, and two counts of harassment. In a
separate indictment in connection with the July 2, 2021 incident, the Defendant was
charged with attempted first degree murder and one count of aggravated assault. At a
consolidated hearing, the Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted second degree murder,
aggravated stalking, two counts of assault, and two counts of harassment and agreed to an
effective ten-year sentence with the manner of service to be determined by the trial court.
The aggravated assault charge was dismissed.
At the guilty plea hearing, the prosecutor stated the following facts relative to the
May 28, 2019 incident:
. . . . Officers responded to an aggravated stalking . . . in Hamilton
County. Officers spoke with the father of the victim. He stated that his
daughter had been stalked by the [D]efendant, her former boyfriend[,] and
he was also the father of her children.
She had fled to an undisclosed location at the time the officers arrived
due to fear for her life from [the Defendant], believing that if he found her he
would kill her.
[The Defendant] apparently had become unstable and threatened to
kill the entire family. [The Defendant] went by the father’s house looking
for the victim in this case. The father stated that [the Defendant] came to the
home banging on the windows and doors trying to find where the victim was
at. The father refused to disclose the location and [the Defendant] fled the
scene stating that he was going to kill them.
[The Defendant] had called various members of the family harassing
and threatening them to disclose the location of the victim. Text messages
were sent to the mother of the victim. One of them stated that [the Defendant]
was going to go on Facebook [L]ive and kill himself. That morning [the
Defendant] posted another Facebook post on his page brandishing what was
believed to be an assault style rifle along with a pistol. He pointed the rifle
at the camera stating, since you all don’t know s[---] you all dead, referring
to the family because they would not disclose the location of the victim.
The last text message stated that if he did not hear from the victim by
a certain time that day he was going to kill the whole family, game over.
-3-
Due to the disturbing and violent posts, the victim continued to feel in
danger, she feared for her life. The family also were in fear of the
[D]efendant at that time.
At the guilty plea hearing, the prosecutor stated the following facts relative to the
July 2, 2021 incident:
. . . . On this date officers responded to a pedestrian being struck . . . .
I should add the victim in this case was a girlfriend or had just broken up
with the [D]efendant at the time of. These are two separate individuals from
the first victim in the case previously announced. He was, however, on bond
for the first offense when he picked up this particular case.
Officers found the victim in this case had been transported to
Parkridge Hospital. The witnesses stated that the victim had been run over
by a man who had subsequently beat her. Officers located Ms. Carpenter,
the victim, at the hospital. The [D]efendant transported her to the hospital
after creating these injuries. He had run over her with his vehicle. It
appeared that her legs had been broken as well as she had sustained other
injuries. She was interviewed and was able to identify the suspect. There
was also what appeared to be some type of stills from the area showing the
vehicle of the [D]efendant.
At the sentencing hearing, the presentence report and a Day Reporting Center
(DRC) report were received as exhibits. According to the presentence report, the
Defendant was age twenty-eight at the time the report was prepared and had obtained a
GED certificate in 2016. The report showed that the Defendant pleaded guilty to vandalism
on two occasions in 2020 for which he received probation. The Defendant reported a
diagnosis of bipolar schizophrenia with mood disorder, for which he had taken prescription
medication previously. The Defendant described his current mental health as “good” and
his physical health as “excellent.” The Defendant reported that he had used alcohol “to
excess,” that he had a history of using marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines, and
that he had not participated in a drug treatment program. The report stated that the
Defendant had family support in Tennessee and Georgia, including a good relationship
with his mother. The Defendant reported that he was not in a romantic relationship, that
he did not have relationships with his three children, and that he did not pay child support.
The report stated that the Defendant’s most recent employment was at an automotive shop
for the five years before his arrest. The risk and needs assessment found the Defendant
had a “high violent overall risk.”
The DRC report stated that the Defendant met the overall technical requirements for
DRC eligibility and recommended that the Defendant be ordered to complete the DRC
-4-
program, continue mental health treatment, and be placed at a sober living or halfway
house. The report also stated that the Defendant had misdemeanor charges with his last
arrest being in July 2021.
Destiny Carpenter testified that she began a relationship with the Defendant in 2021.
She said she was aware that the Defendant’s relationship with Ms. Price had recently ended
and that the Defendant had children with Ms. Price. Ms. Carpenter stated the Defendant
would often stay with her at her mother’s home. Ms. Carpenter described the relationship
as “good” until the Defendant began accusing her of being interested in other men. She
said that after an argument at her mother’s home, the Defendant vandalized the home,
breaking six windows and a flat-screen television. Ms. Carpenter stated that the Defendant
moved back to his mother’s home after that incident and that she stayed at the home for
several days in an attempt to reconcile. When Ms. Carpenter realized that reconciliation
was not possible, she left the home. She recalled that the day she left, the Defendant
accused her of “looking at someone for too long” and that the Defendant became
“triggered.” Ms. Carpenter said, at that point, she picked up her backpack and walked out
the door, returning to her mother’s home, which was not far away. Ms. Carpenter said that,
as she walked to her mother’s home, the Defendant followed her in his car and repeatedly
asked her to get into his car. Ms. Carpenter stated that as she walked on the sidewalk, the
Defendant stopped his car in the middle of the road, left his car, approached her, and
punched her on the face until she fell to the ground. She said that he kicked her once before
returning to his car, driving onto the sidewalk, and striking her.
Ms. Carpenter testified that her injuries included approximately eighteen stitches to
her foot and a broken leg. Ms. Carpenter said that after being hit by the car, she realized
she could not move, her leg was “dangling,” and she was in pain. She stated that the
Defendant apologized, helped her to his car, and drove her to a hospital. She said that she
had surgery to repair her leg and remained in the hospital for approximately two weeks,
that she had to use a wheelchair for several months, and that she still felt pain, even two
years after the incident. Ms. Carpenter said that she had forgiven the Defendant, that she
was happy to be alive, and that she continued to “tread along.”
Ms. Carpenter’s medical records and photographs of her injuries were received as
exhibits. The photographs depicted deep lacerations to Ms. Carpenter’s foot and her
bloodied face, and the x-rays showed broken leg bones.
On cross-examination, Ms. Carpenter testified that the Defendant was apologetic at
the time of the incident but that she had not heard from him in approximately one and onehalf years. Ms. Carpenter also questioned whether the Defendant “really mean[t] it” or
“just really care[d] about his own hide.” Ms. Carpenter said that when the Defendant
telephoned her from jail, he was both “apologetic” and “furious.”
-5-
Ms. Carpenter testified that she was not aware of the Defendant’s mental health
issues other than he had attended counseling previously. Ms. Carpenter stated she had
recovered from her injuries. However, in response to questions from the trial court, Ms.
Carpenter testified that she had residual soreness and pain and avoided “overdoing.” Ms.
Carpenter believed that the Defendant could easily have killed her with the car, for which
he needed to be held accountable.
Former Chattanooga Police Department Special Victims’ Unit Investigator John
Barnett testified that he responded to a domestic violence incident on July 2, 2021, in which
Ms. Carpenter had been struck by the Defendant’s car. Mr. Barnett stated that he
interviewed Ms. Carpenter while she was in the hospital and corroborated her account of
the incident with real time intelligence center (RTIC) camera surveillance recording of the
street where she was injured. The recording was received as an exhibit. As the recording
was played for the court, Mr. Barnett described its contents. Mr. Barnett said that the
camera scanned the neighborhood, recording different locations every few minutes and
periodically zooming in to view certain areas. Mr. Barnett identified the Defendant and
Ms. Carpenter and said the Defendant left his car, punched Ms. Carpenter, returned to his
car, drove his car onto the sidewalk, backed the car into the middle of the road, and walked
from the driver’s side of the car to the sidewalk.
Mr. Barnett testified that the Defendant was not at the hospital with Ms. Carpenter.
Mr. Barnett was unable to locate the Defendant for a statement until the Defendant was
arrested on July 20, 2021, at which time then-investigator Barnett interviewed the
Defendant. A copy of the interview was received as an exhibit and played for the court.
On cross-examination, Mr. Barnett testified that the Defendant took responsibility for his
behavior and acknowledged his need for mental health assistance.
In the interview after the Defendant’s July 20, 2021 arrest, the Defendant stated that
he had not been “in trouble” before that time and acknowledged he had “mind problems.”
The Defendant said that he had been diagnosed years ago with bipolar schizophrenia, that
he had been prescribed medicine for that diagnosis, but that he had not taken his medication
because it made him too sleepy. He stated that he understood the July 2, 2021 incident
was “[his] fault,” that he “messed up,” and that he “needed help.” The Defendant said he
was mad at Ms. Carpenter because he believed she had “cheated on” him. He related that
when someone made him mad, his anger built up until he “exploded.” He said he “felt
bad” for injuring Ms. Carpenter and wanted to be around people who could help him
instead of going to jail.
Friends House Ministries Director Monty Reeves testified that he had worked with
the Hamilton County Jail reentry department for three years and with the state mental
health department for five years. He described Friends House as a sober living home at
which participants were allowed to leave during the day for work but were required to
-6-
return in the evening, attend meetings, undertake drug testing, and obey all court
requirements, including probation orders. Mr. Reeves stated that the program required a
minimum of six months and utilized curriculums approved by the Tennessee Department
of Correction. Mr. Reeves said that Friends House had a staff member who could manage
participants with mild mental health issues but that Friends House could not accept
participants who “couldn’t function reasonably well in society,” sex offenders, or
participants who “would be dangerous to the neighborhood or the other people in the
house.” Mr. Reeves said that participants had been removed from the Friends House for
rule violations. Mr. Reeves noted participants paid weekly rent.
Mr. Reeves testified that he had met with the Defendant weekly for approximately
one year through the Friends House Ministries and the jail’s reentry program and that
Friends House had a place for the Defendant. Mr. Reeves stated that the Defendant
understood the lifestyle changes he needed to make and was motivated to begin the
program. Mr. Reeves acknowledged that he was aware of the underlying facts of the
conviction offenses.
On cross-examination, Mr. Reeves testified that a participant was free to leave the
facility and go anywhere between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., assuming the
participant maintained a job and attended probation meetings. Mr. Reeves affirmed that
the Defendant could participate in Friends House with bipolar schizophrenia only if he
regularly took his medications. Otherwise, the Defendant would be asked to leave. Mr.
Reeves stated that the Defendant appeared “low key,” “quiet,” and “remorseful” during
their meetings. Mr. Reeves surmised that the Defendant acted out of anger during the July
2021 incident.
Mr. Reeves testified that he was not aware that the Defendant had punched Ms.
Carpenter’s face but understood that the Defendant drove his car onto a sidewalk and struck
Ms. Carpenter with his car, requiring her to be hospitalized. Mr. Reeves acknowledged
that he was not aware of any of the facts regarding the May 2019 incident during which
the Defendant threatened Ms. Price and her family. Mr. Reeves stated that he would still
accept the Defendant at Friends House because he assumed the Defendant’s violent actions
were the result of methamphetamine use.
In response to a question from the trial court, Mr. Reeves testified that he was
willing to take participants who were on house arrest if he determined that they were not
dangerous. Mr. Reeves also affirmed that he would report to the court and to the district
attorney’s office if a participant violated any program requirement or rule.
The Defendant provided the following allocution:
-7-
First off I would like to apologize for the hurt that I have caused the
victim and her family and I have learned a valuable lesson in life. I was
wrong for what I did and no matter what they do is not worth the problems
that I caused. I realized that sitting in jail taught me to have patience and
helped me to control my anger. Although jail has really changed my life and
saved me, I realize jail is not where I want to spend my life especially after
being around people who are on the wrong path in life with no means to
change for the better. I am willing to take full responsibility for my actions.
I just want to be a productive citizen to the community. To rehabilitate I am
getting the help that I need so that I may not make the same mistakes in the
future. I am sorry once again for everything. If I were to go to prison today,
I would continue to stay sober, I would get all my classes complete and work
as much as possible to stay away from violence and negativity. I am not a
gang member nor am I affiliated or associated with any gang. I just want to
get home to my children. I would like to find a chapel to continue to grow
my faith with God and I will try to get a trade of some type to help me upon
my release in the future. The day I am released I will call Friends House
Ministry to see if I could continue my sober living around positive people
and to complete my plan of the future to ensure that my future is successful.
If I were to walk out of jail today, I will first call Friends House Ministry to
come pick me up and take me to the house where I would be staying at. I
will immediately look for and apply for a job, something I would be a great
fit for. I will cut all ties to old friends and women that would take a negative
effect on my life. I will stay away from all drugs and alcohol, keeping a
sober way of living. I will attend church service to stay closer with God and
surround myself with positive people who encourage positivity to my future.
I will go back to school, educate myself so that I may be a better father to my
kids and provide more for them and the success of their future, all to the best
of my ability with the help of God and other people, I believe this can be
done. Thank you.
The trial court stated that it was inclined to order the Defendant to serve the full
sentence in confinement with the understanding that if the Defendant filed a motion for
reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure,
1
the court would likely release the Defendant to serve the last five years of his sentence on
house arrest.

1 Rule 35 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that “[t]he trial court may reduce a
sentence upon motion filed within 120 days after the date the sentence is imposed or probation is revoked.”
-8-
After receiving the evidence and hearing testimony, the trial court reiterated that the
parties had agreed to a two-year sentence for the May 28, 2019 incident and a consecutive
eight-year sentence for the July 2, 2021 incident. The court considered that the Defendant
had a history of vandalism and verbal abuse. The court noted that Ms. Carpenter’s injuries
were “gruesome,” that she was hospitalized for over two weeks, that she needed a
wheelchair for two months, and that she still felt pain. The court considered the
Defendant’s bipolar schizophrenia diagnosis and the Defendant’s acceptance of
responsibility. The court noted that the Defendant’s desire to reconcile with Ms. Carpenter
indicated that the Defendant had irrational thoughts regarding the women who had been
victims of his violence. The court also considered that the Defendant qualified for the
DRC.
The trial court found confinement appropriate due to the Defendant’s long history
of violent criminal behavior in a domestic setting and to avoid depreciating the seriousness
of the offense. In that regard, the court stated that anytime a woman ended a relationship
with the Defendant, his anger escalated to violence. Accordingly, the court ordered the
Defendant to serve his ten-year sentence in confinement. The court also suggested that the
Defendant file a motion for a reduction in sentence. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 35. If the
Defendant showed a history of stable behavior and mental health, the court indicated it
would likely allow the Defendant to finish his sentence on house arrest. This appeal
followed.
The Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying alternative sentencing.
Specifically, the Defendant alleges that the court abused its discretion by finding the
Defendant had a long history of criminal conduct, that the court improperly relied on the
need not to depreciate the seriousness of the offense when denying alternative sentencing,
and that the court erred by failing to allow the defense to make closing argument at the
sentencing hearing. The State argues that the court acted within its discretion. We agree
with the State.
The standard of review for questions related to probation or any other alternative
sentence is an abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness. State v. Caudle,
388 S.W.3d 273, 278–79 (Tenn. 2012); see State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682, 708 (Tenn.
2012). Generally, probation is available to a defendant sentenced to ten years or less.
T.C.A. § 40-35-303(a) (2019). The burden of establishing suitability for probation rests
with a defendant, who must demonstrate that probation will “‘subserve the ends of justice
and the best interest of both the public and the defendant.’” State v. Souder, 105 S.W.3d
602, 607 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002) (quoting State v. Dykes, 803 S.W.2d 250, 259 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1990)); see T.C.A. § 40-35-303(b); State v. Carter, 254 S.W.3d 335, 347 (Tenn.
2008).
-9-
A sentence is based upon “the nature of the offense and the totality of the
circumstances,” including a defendant’s background. State v. Ashby, 823 S.W.2d 166, 168
(Tenn. 1991); see State v. Trotter, 201 S.W.3d 651, 653 (Tenn. 2006). A trial court is
permitted to sentence a defendant who otherwise qualifies for probation or alternative
sentencing to incarceration when:
(A) [c]onfinement is necessary to protect society by restraining a defendant
who has a long history of criminal conduct;
(B) [c]onfinement is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the
offense or confinement is particularly suited to provide an effective
deterrence to others likely to commit similar offenses; or
(C) [m]easures less restrictive than confinement have frequently or recently
been applied unsuccessfully to the defendant[.]
T.C.A. § 40-35-103(1)(A)-(C) (2019); see Trotter, 201 S.W.3d at 654. A trial court must
consider (1) the defendant’s amenability to correction, (2) the circumstances of the offense,
(3) the defendant’s criminal record, (4) the defendant’s social history, (5) the defendant’s
physical and mental health, and (6) the deterrence value to the defendant and others. See
State v. Trent, 533 S.W.3d 282, 291 (Tenn. 2017) (concluding that the same factors used
to determine whether to impose judicial diversion are applicable in determining whether to
impose probation); see also State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1998); State v. Parker, 932 S.W.2d 945, 958 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1996). Further, when
the sole issue before the trial court is the manner of service, “information offered on the
enhancement and mitigating factors is relevant to [a] determination of ‘the appropriate
combination of sentencing alternatives that shall be imposed on the defendant[.]’” State v.
Bolling, 75 S.W.3d 418, 421 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2001) (citations omitted). A defendant
convicted of a Class B felony is not considered a favorable candidate for alternative
sentencing pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section § 40-35-102(6)(A) (2019).
If probation is denied solely on the basis of the circumstances of the offense, they
“must be especially violent, horrifying, shocking, reprehensible, offensive, or otherwise of
an excessive or exaggerated degree,” and the nature of the offense must outweigh all factors
favoring a sentence other than probation. State v. Hartley, 818 S.W.2d 370, 374-75 (Tenn.
Crim. App. 1991) (citations omitted). This court has recognized, “This standard has
essentially been codified in the first part of [Tennessee Code Annotated] § 40-35-103(1)(B)
which provides for confinement if it ‘is necessary to avoid depreciating the seriousness of
the offense.’” Id. at 375.
The Defendant contends the trial court erred by finding the Defendant had a long
history of criminal conduct. The court found that the Defendant had a history of violent
-10-
criminal conduct. The presentence report reflects that the Defendant had two vandalism
convictions, and Ms. Carpenter testified that the Defendant vandalized her mother’s home
only days before the Defendant attempted to kill her, though the incident was uncharged.
See State v. Mason Thomas Wilbanks and Steve A. Williams, No. 01C01-9804-CR-00184,
1999 WL 325958, at *7 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 21, 1999) (noting that the trial court
considered evidence during sentencing that the defendant previously vandalized his
roommate’s apartment, although the defendant was not charged with a crime). In the
instant case, the Defendant threatened to kill Ms. Price and her family, stating on an internet
post “since you all don’t know s[---] you all dead” while pointing guns at the camera and
then, while out on bond, physically assaulted and attempted to kill Ms. Carpenter by
striking her with his car. The record supports the court’s conclusion that the Defendant
had a long history of criminal conduct.
The Defendant contends the trial court failed to make sufficient findings to deny
alternative sentencing based solely on the need to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the
offense. The record reflects that the court based its sentencing decision on both the
Defendant’s history of criminal conduct and to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the
offense. The court found that the circumstances of the offense and the need to deter the
Defendant from future domestic violence weighed heavily against alternative sentencing
and in favor of confinement. The court was particularly concerned by the seriousness of
Ms. Carpenter’s injuries. The record reflects that the Defendant followed Ms. Carpenter
in his car, that he left his car, that he approached Ms. Carpenter and repeatedly punched
her face until she fell to the sidewalk, that he kicked her while she was on the sidewalk
before returning to his car, and that he then drove his car onto the sidewalk, striking Ms.
Carpenter, in an attempt to kill her. Ms. Carpenter testified that she believed she could
have easily died, that she spent a lengthy stay in the hospital followed by months in a
wheelchair, and that she continued to have pain.
The trial court acknowledged the Defendant’s mental health issues and the
Defendant’s acceptance into Friends House if he were placed on house arrest. The court
considered the presentence report, the risk and needs assessment, the Defendant’s
statements, and the Defendant’s allocution. Upon review, we determine that the Defendant
has failed to show an abuse of discretion. The court was heavily swayed by the Defendant’s
history of criminal conduct, the seriousness of the offense, and other factors. The record
reflects that the court considered all the appropriate factors and stated its reasons for
denying alternative sentencing. The Defendant is not entitled to relief on this basis.
The Defendant’s contention that the trial court failed to allow the parties to present
argument at the sentencing hearing is not supported by the evidence. The record reflects
that the court indicated a possible sentencing disposition and, addressing the parties, stated,
“[b]ut I would like to hear your arguments.” The parties then addressed the court. At the
conclusion of the State’s argument, defense counsel addressed the applicability of
-11-
enhancing and mitigating factors, the Defendant’s remorse and acceptance of
responsibility, the Defendant’s acceptance into the Friends House program, and the
Defendant’s eligibility for alternative sentencing. At the close of defense argument, the
court asked defense counsel if she wanted to address “anything else,” to which defense
counsel stated, “No.” The record does not support the Defendant’s assertion that the trial
court did not allow the defense to present argument. The Defendant is not entitled to relief
on this basis.

Outcome:

In consideration of the foregoing and the record as a whole, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: