Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, Nashville
Assigned on Briefs Date: January 17, 2018
from the Circuit Court for Marshall County No. 16-CR-184
Forest A. Durard, Jr., Judge
Antwuan Matias Gordon, entered an open guilty plea to one
count of driving a motor vehicle after having been declared a
habitual motor vehicle offender, in violation of Tennessee
Code Annotated section 55-10-616. The trial court sentenced
Defendant to serve four years in incarceration. On appeal,
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying an
alternative sentence. After a review, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit
Orr Hargrove, District Public Defender, and William J.
Harold, Assistant District Public Defender, for the
appellant, Antwuan Matias Gordon.
Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Brent
C. Cherry, Senior Counsel; Robert James Carter, District
Attorney General; and William A. Dement, Assistant District
Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
Timothy L. Easter, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in
which Thomas T. Woodall, P.J., and Robert L. Holloway, Jr.,
TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JUDGE
was indicted by the Marshall County Grand Jury in December of
2016 for driving a motor vehicle after having been declared a
habitual motor vehicle offender. Defendant entered an open
guilty plea, with the trial court to determine the length and
manner of service of the sentence at a sentencing hearing.
guilty plea hearing, the State alleged that had the matter
gone to trial, the proof would have shown that Defendant was
declared a habitual motor vehicle offender on December 4,
2012. Subsequently, on June 6, 2016, Defendant was seen
driving a 2001 Chevy Blazer on Highway 431. He passed another
vehicle in a no passing zone. A police officer initiated a
traffic stop. When the officer ran a driver's license
check, dispatch advised the officer that Defendant's
license was revoked. Defendant agreed to the factual basis
for the plea and the trial court accepted the plea of guilt.
trial court held a sentencing hearing. At the hearing, the
State introduced the presentence report. The report indicated
that Defendant had four prior felony convictions and a number
of misdemeanor convictions and had been unsuccessful in past
attempts at probation. Specifically, the report indicated
that Defendant was on community corrections at the time of
the current offense.
trial court determined that Defendant was a Range II,
multiple offender. The trial court applied enhancement
factors (1), (8), and (13) along with mitigating factor (1).
See T.C.A. §§ 40-35-113, -114. The trial
court noted that Defendant was "well-spoken, "
"polite, " and "neat" and was perplexed
as to why Defendant kept coming back to court. At the time of
the sentencing hearing, Defendant was twenty-six years of
age. The trial court determined that a sentence of four years
was appropriate based in part on the fact that Defendant had
an "extensive history of criminal activity." The
trial court considered alternative sentencing and denied it
on the basis that Defendant had potential to re-offend and
"at some point [Defendant's criminal behavior] has
has appealed the trial court's denial of an ...