The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has dismissed an appeal by Shavonna Austin regarding her restitution obligations following a judicial diversion sentence. The decision, issued on September 24, 2026, affects Austin and her ability to seek expunction of her criminal record. The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Austin faced charges related to the fraudulent diversion of $101,850 from victims Sharon and Jonathan Fletcher. The Fletchers believed they were making a down payment for a home, but instead, the funds were diverted into Austin's account. In August 2022, she pled nolo contendere to facilitation of theft of more than $60,000, a Class C felony, as part of a negotiated plea agreement. The agreement included a three-year judicial diversion period, during which a restitution hearing would determine the amount she owed to the victims.
During the restitution hearing, the trial court found that Austin had ignored several red flags indicating the funds were not legitimate. Despite her claims, the court determined that she had personally benefited from the stolen money. The court set her restitution at $50,925, requiring monthly payments. However, after Austin failed to make regular payments, the trial court deemed her progress toward restitution unsatisfactory.
After completing her three-year diversion term without any violations, Austin filed a motion to remove the restitution requirement and dismiss her case. She argued that the unpaid restitution should not prevent her from seeking expunction of her record. However, the trial court ruled that she had not successfully completed her diversion because she had not paid the required restitution.
The court stated, "Defendant had not 'successfully completed' her diversion because restitution, an express condition of the diversion, remained unpaid." The trial court's ruling clarified that the conversion of unpaid restitution to a civil judgment did not satisfy the restitution requirement imposed as part of her judicial diversion.
On appeal, Austin contended that the trial court erred in denying her motion. However, the State argued that the appeal should be dismissed because the Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b) does not authorize an appeal from such an order. The court agreed, stating that Austin's appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for jurisdiction.
The court emphasized that because Austin's judicial diversion meant no judgment of conviction was entered, Rule 3(b) did not apply. The court noted, "In judicial diversion cases, no judgment of conviction is entered, and a sentence is imposed only in the instance that the defendant fails to successfully complete the period of probation pursuant to the grant of judicial diversion."
The dismissal of Austin's appeal means that she remains subject to the terms of her judicial diversion, including the restitution obligation. This ruling underscores the importance of fulfilling conditions set by the court in diversion agreements.
The outcome of this case may have implications for others in similar situations, particularly those seeking expunction of their records. It highlights the necessity for defendants to understand the conditions of their plea agreements and the potential consequences of failing to meet those conditions.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Austin will pursue further legal action or if she has any other related cases pending. The court's ruling effectively closes the door on her current appeal, but it does not preclude her from seeking other legal remedies in the future.