Appeals panel hears challenge to 8‑year, 100% sentence for Paul Rogers; defense seeks findings on split confinement

An appellate panel heard oral arguments in State of Tennessee v. Paul Rogers over whether the trial court erred by ordering Rogers to serve an eight‑year sentence at 100% instead of a lesser alternative such as split confinement or probation.

Autumn Bowling, counsel for appellant Paul Rogers, told the court she raised three issues on appeal, centering her argument on the manner in which the trial judge imposed the sentence. "There is no reason on the record or explanation or finding that split confinement would not have been an appropriate sentence," Bowling said, urging that the Sentencing Act requires imposing "the least severe measure necessary" and that the trial court failed to make the required, case‑specific findings to justify full confinement.

Bowling told the panel the facts leading to the underlying plea included officers running plates at a gas station, a vehicle pursuit on an interstate, and a vehicle collision with a patrol car. Rogers pleaded guilty by information to nine counts, with the lead count an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a Class C felony) as a Range II offender; the agreed effective sentence was eight years with the manner of service left to the trial court, counsel said.

At the heart of the defense argument was the contention that denying probation is not the same as denying split confinement, and that the trial court must separately explain why split confinement—or another less‑restrictive alternative—was insufficient. Bowling told the panel that, while the trial judge discussed confinement factors (citing Tennessee Code Annotated § 40‑35‑103(a) during argument), the record does not connect factual findings to why full confinement specifically was necessary rather than some period of confinement followed by supervision.

The State, represented by Ronald Coleman, urged the court to affirm. Coleman summarized additional facts that he said the trial court considered at sentencing: officers located the vehicle after the pursuit, a K‑9 alerted leading them to the defendant, and officers recovered a needle and two glass smoking devices; the defense had entered a global plea to multiple offenses and left the manner of service to the trial court. Coleman said the trial court expressly identified and weighed the statutory confinement factors—lengthy criminal history, the need for deterrence and public safety, and prior unsuccessful alternative sentences, including parole and probation revocations—and concluded confinement was appropriate.

Coleman argued the appropriate appellate standard is abuse‑of‑discretion with a presumption of reasonableness when a trial court places its reasoning on the record, and he said the record shows the trial judge tied its conclusions to the statutory considerations. "The court stated its reasons on the record and then determined that confinement was appropriate," Coleman told the panel.

The parties debated recent Tennessee decisions and standards of review. Defense counsel asked the panel to apply de novo review or, at minimum, to remand for specific findings explaining why split confinement was inadequate. The State countered that the trial court need not recite a checklist denying every possible alternative sentence and that split confinement, which includes a probationary component, is inappropriate if the defendant is unsuitable for probation.

Counsel and the panel also discussed several reported decisions referenced in the arguments, including State v. Jerome Cole (cited as a 2025 decision), State v. Donovan, State v. Richards (2024), and precedent labeled by counsel as Trotter and Trent; both sides relied on those authorities in framing whether heightened or specific on‑the‑record findings were required in these circumstances.

The panel reserved the matter for decision. Before adjourning, the judges thanked counsel, stepped out so students in the courtroom could speak with attorneys, and scheduled the next argument for 1:30 p.m. The court did not announce a ruling from the bench.