A Tennessee court has upheld the eight-year prison sentence of Amanda Michelle Owen, who pleaded guilty to stealing over $60,000 but less than $250,000 from her former employer, Xtreme Marine. Owen argued that the trial court should have considered an alternative sentence, such as probation. However, the court found that the trial court properly considered the circumstances of the crime and did not abuse its discretion in ordering full incarceration.
Owen was employed as an “accounts payable specialist” at Xtreme Marine. Between August 1, 2020, and April 30, 2022, she used company credit cards to make fraudulent charges totaling over $215,000. The court heard testimony that Owen exploited her position to conceal the theft, including canceling employee credit cards and then using them for personal expenses. She also obtained account numbers for cards assigned to other employees and used them to make unauthorized online purchases.
The Scheme Unfolds
The fraudulent activity was discovered when another employee received a suspicious text message asking to reset a credit card password. This prompted an investigation, which revealed numerous personal charges made by Owen to approximately 126 different vendors, including popular retailers and entertainment venues. These purchases included clothing, home décor, travel expenses, and even pet care.
Owen’s Testimony
During the sentencing hearing, Owen testified that she started using a company card to purchase groceries during the COVID-19 pandemic because she was the only one working in the household. She later expanded her fraudulent activities to pay for rent, utilities, and other personal expenses, admitting she charged an average of $6,000 per month. Owen acknowledged that she knew her actions were wrong and stated she had no psychological issues that contributed to her crimes. She also admitted to a history of substance abuse but denied using the stolen funds to purchase drugs.
The Trial Court’s Decision
The trial court considered Owen’s history of criminal behavior, her abuse of a position of trust, and the degree of financial loss to the company. While acknowledging that Owen had no prior criminal convictions and had secured employment after her arrest, the court ultimately determined that full incarceration was necessary. The court emphasized the “very extensive theft” and the types of purchases Owen made with the stolen money, concluding that there was a risk of reoffending. The court found that probation would depreciate the seriousness of the offense and was not sufficient to protect society from Owen’s future criminal conduct.
Legal Arguments and the Court’s Reasoning
On appeal, Owen argued that the trial court erred by ordering full confinement based on the seriousness of the offense without making a finding that the circumstances of the offense were extreme. The State countered that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and the record supported the sentence of full confinement.
The appellate court reviewed the case under an “abuse of discretion standard.” This means the court would uphold the trial court’s decision as long as it was within the appropriate range and the record demonstrated that the sentence complied with the purposes and principles of sentencing.
The court found that the trial court had considered the appropriate factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, and weighed them accordingly. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s assessment that Owen’s actions were not just a single act of theft but a pattern of abuse of trust and concealment over an extended period. The court also found that Owen’s purchases, which included luxury items and entertainment, supported the trial court’s concern that she might reoffend.
The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s findings were supported by the facts and that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying alternative sentencing. Therefore, Owen’s eight-year prison sentence was upheld.