Case against Murfreesboro Madam UPDATED: READ THE OUTCOME

October 7, 2008

You may recall the woman who was dubbed the Murfreesboro Madam. The female who lived in the Northwoods subdivision and who allegedly operated an escort service out of her home that was broken apart by Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department. Well, WGNS has learned that her case was recently before the Court of Criminal Appeals. The outcome of that case, STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LISA E. BURRIS, can be read in full detail below.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
AT NASHVILLE

August 19, 2008 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LISA E. BURRIS

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County
No. 59293 James K. Clayton, Jr., Judge
No. M2007-02576-CCA-R3-CD - Filed October 6, 2008

The defendant, Lisa E. Burris, appeals the Rutherford County Circuit Court’s denial of her bid for
judicial diversion. Because the record does not show that the trial court considered the full array of

factors upon which its decision should be based and because the record supports an award of judicial
diversion in this case, we vacate the judgments and remand the case for the imposition of judicial
diversion subject to her qualifying pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313(a)(3).

Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Judgments of the Circuit Court Vacated and case Remanded
JAMES CURWOOD WITT,JR.,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JOSEPH M.TIPTON,P.J.,
and CAMILLE R. MCMULLEN, J., joined.

Lee E. Dryer and Gene Honea, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellant, Lisa E. Burris.
Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Elizabeth B. Marney, Assistant Attorney
General; William C. Whitesell, Jr., District Attorney General; and Trevor H. Lynch, Assistant
District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION
The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of promoting prostitution, a Class E felony,
see T.C.A. § 39-13-515 (2006), and one count of patronizing prostitution, a Class B misdemeanor,
see id. § 39-13-514(a), (b)(1), and requested judicial diversion, see id. § 40-35-313. The trial court
held a hearing on the diversion request on August 13, 2007. On October 1, 2007, the trial court
denied diversion and entered the judgments, imposing concurrent, suspended sentences of two years
for the conviction of promoting prostitution and six months for the conviction of patronizing
prostitution.

In the August 13, 2007 hearing, the defendant testified that she was born in
Clarksville and held a four-year degree from Middle Tennessee State University. At the time of the
hearing, she was in the process of obtaining a divorce from her husband, with whom she had three
children. The defendant testified that their marriage was amicable until their first daughter was
diagnosed with cancer. At that point, she had to stop working and her “husband made it very clear
that . . . because [she] did not bring home a paycheck, [she] lost all rights, decisions or financial
input or anything to do with decisions in [their] marriage.”

The defendant testified that she first filed for divorce in August 2003, but the couple
reconciled in 2005. After the reconciliation, her husband continued to deny her access to the
checking account. Her initial attempts to find employment after 13 years of taking care of the
children were unsuccessful. She testified that as a result of not having access to the family finances,
essential family needs such as her prescribed medication and trips to the doctor for their children
were not met.

The defendant testified she got involved in the case when she “was approached online
by a man who offered to pay for services.” She needed money to re-initiate divorce proceedings, “a
large amount that [she] didn’t have,” and she felt uncomfortable asking her family for money
because they had been so upset when she reconciled with her husband.

The defendant testified that she knew her actions were morally wrong but that she was
“desperate.” Since her arrest, she had become active in her church spiritual group and a divorce
counseling group and was employed as a senior project manager.

On cross-examination, the defendant admitted that she used the computer to set up
her appointments to have sex for money with several individuals over a four-month period. She
operated an Internet website named “HoneyGFE”; the initials GFE stood for “girl friend experience.”
She testified that she used the website to obtain information from potential clients in order to ensure
that no potential client was a police officer. She admitted that she had suffered from depression
during the period she was a prostitute but noted that in the months following her arrest the depression
had ceased.

Kimberly Tate, who knew the defendant through the church spiritual journey group,
testified that when she first met the defendant, the defendant was depressed, suicidal, and spoke of
suffering abuse from her husband. She testified that after the defendant was arrested and began
coming to group sessions, “her state of mind [became] much healthier.”

Jimmy Burris, the defendant’s ex-husband, testified that the defendant stopped
working when their first child was diagnosed with cancer. He recalled that although she briefly
returned to the work force, she never went back to full-time work after their second child was born.
Mr. Burris denied refusing money to the defendant for essential family needs and claimed that the
defendant had a debit card and access to the family check book. He also denied preventing the
defendant from buying her cholesterol medicine but admitted he could not afford it every time. He
testified that he removed her name from the checking account only after their first divorce
proceeding began.

Mr. Burris testified that although the original divorce proceeding was initiated by the
defendant, he had discovered several months before that proceeding that she was having “cybersex”
with other men online. Although the couple later reconciled, the reconciliation lasted “only a week
or two . . . she was still on the computer with men, and [he] said that we can’t have that.” He had
installed monitoring software on the computer that tracked which websites were accessed. The
couple remained together in the same house after separating. Mr. Burris testified that he thought the
defendant was obtaining money through employment with a greeting card company.

On cross examination, Mr. Burris admitted that he reported the defendant’s online
activities to the police department. He denied ever seeing anything that indicated she was depressed.
He testified that he wanted the defendant’s request for diversion denied because “she was doing
illegal acts around [the] children.” He testified that photographs of the defendant that appeared on
her website were taken in the family home.

Erin Stephens, who prepared the presentence report, testified that the defendant told
her that she was in good mental health and that her physical health was fine except for high blood
pressure and high cholesterol. The defendant did not mention any instances of depression in the
interview.

On October 1, 2007, the trial court reached its decision, ruling:
I have no question in my mind that [the defendant] is entitled to a
suspended sentence in this case, because I think she has done a good
job of accepting responsibility and doing something about it. And
apparently she is now employed. She’s now a lot better off than she
was for that four[-]month period of time.

But I do still have to consider that it was a four
month period of time. It was advertised on the Internet. And
certainly she went to a great extent to carry on the profession that she
was taking part in at the time.

I feel like the [c]ourt has a right under the law, as I
understand it, to deny a 40-35-313 diversion in a case where there has
been an extensive intent to violate the law as there was in this case.
The defendant appeals from the denial of diversion, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion
in denying diversion solely on the basis of the “sustained intent” to violate the law.
“Judicial diversion” is a reference to the provision in Tennessee Code Annotated
section 40-35-313(a) for a trial court’s deferring proceedings in a criminal case. See T.C.A. § 40-35313(
a)(1)(A) (2006). Pursuant to such a deferral, the trial court places the defendant on probation
“without entering a judgment of guilty.” Id. To be eligible or “qualified” for judicial diversion, the
defendant must plead guilty to, or be found guilty of, an offense that is not “a sexual offense or a
Class A or Class B felony,” and the defendant must not have previously been convicted of a felony
or a Class A misdemeanor. Id. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(B)(i)(b), (c). Diversion requires the consent of
the qualified defendant. Id. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A).

Eligibility, however, does not automatically translate into entitlement to judicial
diversion. See State v. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), overruled on other
grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000). The statute states that a trial court may
grant judicial diversion in appropriate cases. See T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(1)(A) (2006) (court “may
defer further proceedings”). Thus, whether an accused should be granted judicial diversion is a
question entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168.
“Tennessee courts have recognized the similarities between judicial diversion and
pretrial diversion and, thus, have drawn heavily from the case law governing pretrial diversion to
analyze cases involving judicial diversion.” State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 343 (Tenn. Crim.
App. 1997). Accordingly, the relevant factors related to pretrial diversion also apply in the judicial
diversion context.

They are:

[T]he defendant’s criminal record, social history, mental and physical
condition, attitude, behavior since arrest, emotional stability, current
drug usage, past employment, home environment, marital stability,
family responsibility, general reputation and amenability to
correction, as well as the circumstances of the offense, the deterrent
effect of punishment upon other criminal activity, and the likelihood
that [judicial] diversion will serve the ends of justice and best
interests of both the public and the defendant.

Id. at 343-44; see State v. Washington, 866 S.W.2d 950, 951 (Tenn. 1993). Moreover, the record
must reflect that the trial court has weighed all of the factors in reaching its determination. Bonestel,
871 S.W.2d at 168. The trial court must explain on the record why the defendant does not qualify
under its analysis, and if the court has based its determination on only some of the factors, it must
explain why these factors outweigh the others. Id.

On appeal, this court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in
failing to grant judicial diversion. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d at 344; Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168.
Accordingly, when a defendant challenges the denial of judicial diversion, we may not revisit the
issue if the record contains any substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s decision. Cutshaw,
967 S.W.2d at 344; Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168.

First, we point out that the defendant pleaded guilty to a Class E felony and Class B
misdemeanor and has no prior criminal record. Therefore, she qualifies to be considered for judicial
diversion. Second, the record in this case shows that the trial court’s only consideration in denying
judicial diversion was that the defendant’s actions showed a “sustained intent” to violate the law
because she “made a mistake over and over again.” The trial court failed to consider the other
relevant factors enumerated in Cutshaw and offered no explanation of either why it used a truncated
analysis or why the “sustained intent” factor outweighed the others. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d at 168.
Therefore, we will conduct a de novo review of the entirety of the evidence to “determine whether
the trial court reached the correct result, notwithstanding its failure to explain its reasoning.” State
v. Jared Singleton, No. M2002-02392-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 8 (Tenn. Crim. App., Nashville, Mar.
5, 2004).

Several factors support the defendant’s request for diversion. As for the defendant’s
amenability to correction, we note that the trial court itself stated that the defendant “has done a good
job of accepting responsibility” since her arrest. The defendant has no prior criminal record and she
testified that she had been employed since January 2007. The record shows that the defendant took
steps after her arrest to improve her mental and physical condition. Facts relating to the defendant’s
social history support her receiving diversion, including her support by her family and friends in the
community. Further, we think diversion would be a sufficient deterrent for the defendant in light
of her fully understanding and accepting the consequences of her actions.

The trial court found that the defendant’s sustained intent to violate the law supported
the denial of diversion. Although we agree that this is a circumstance of the offense, in light of the
number of factors supporting the granting of diversion, we conclude that diversion is proper in this
instance and will serve the ends of justice and the best interests of the public and the defendant. In
particular, we believe that the defendant is amenable to rehabilitation. See State v. Curry, 988
S.W.2d 153, 157 (Tenn. 1999) (stating that in deciding whether to grant pretrial diversion, focus
should be on defendant’s amenability to correction).

Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in denying diversion. In consequence,
we vacate the judgments and remand the case for an order placing the defendant on diversion,
provided a certificate is obtained from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation reflecting that the
defendant is not disqualified from diversion. See T.C.A. § 40-35-313(a)(3) (“No order deferring
further proceedings and placing the defendant on probation as authorized by this subsection (a) may
be entered by the court on or after July 1, 1998, unless there is attached to it a certificate from the
Tennessee bureau of investigation stating that the defendant does not have a prior felony or Class
A misdemeanor conviction.”).

JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR., JUDGE

NOTE: Photo has nothing to do with the case that is outlined above.

Share and Enjoy:

Written by Michael Lansing · Filed Under Featured

Comments

7 Responses to “Case against Murfreesboro Madam UPDATED: READ THE OUTCOME”

Lea Anne Bedsole on November 18th, 2008 12:06 am

I was sad to hear Lisa Burris was on Channel 5 news tonight discussing why she turned to prostitution. Hasn’t this woman done enough to her children? Ms. Burris please give your children a break and stop talking about this embarrassing time in their lives. No one cares why you committed a crime- you broke your children’s hearts! Enough about you–think about them!
anissa gold on November 21st, 2008 10:20 am

I feel she would not have given the intreview but since she did, people need to back up off of her. Escort Service has and will be around long after we are gone. There are times when women get into situations that, that is your only way out. working to running a service does not mean that you are out having sex. People need tio stop being so stupid.

I hate that this affects her kids, but a least she still has them and was taking care of her children. You cannot even say that about most of the moms today. A lot of you grandmothers know because you have custody of your grandchildren.
Lisa Burris on February 28th, 2009 3:59 am

In response to Ms. Bledsoe, I do not know you however I do know that you are a friend of my ex-husband, Jimmy Burris, per his and your Facebook profiles. I am certain you do not know my children personally nor do you know how they are doing.

What you saw on Channel 5 was an opportunity for a small part of the rest of the story to be told. Jimmy has taken great pleasure in portraying himself as the self-less father and martyr to all of Murfreesboro and beyond. I believe that by now he could have won the Oscar for Best Performance as “The Concerned Father” when the reality is that is not the case. The reality is that Jimmy is a shallow, insecure man who uses threats, verbal, emotional, mental, physical and financial abuse against anyone (including his children) who stands in the way of what he wants or who does not “get on his page” (a direct quote per Jimmy). Jimmy is all about how HE looks to the fine folks of Murfreesboro who can help him get a little further along with his plans in life. After years of abuse, I was very desperate to get away from this man. I have taken full responsibility for my actions in the community, with my children, and my family and friends. So please don’t try to make yourself appear that you are just a concerned reader of the WGNS website.

In all fairness to the readers of your post, you should have identified yourself as a friend of Jimmy’s so they would realize your comments were at the very least shaded by your friendship with Jimmy. I would even be so bold as to assert that Jimmy may have asked you to post something just to stir up the situation. He doesn’t do his own dirty work; he gets his good friends to do it for him. I don’t need your advice telling me to give my children a break. My children are doing very well and their hearts are not broken at all. If you ever see us out and about town, stop and introduce yourself and I will be happy to let you speak to each of them and they can tell you how they feel about the past three years, about me and about their father; you might be in for quite a surprise based on the assertions you posted here. As for future posts, I will be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding my actions and my children. If you wish to know more, let Jimmy know that he has my permission to provide you with my email address and you may email me directly.

Blessings to you and yours Ms. Bledsoe,

Lisa Burris
Lisa Burris on February 28th, 2009 5:13 am

Please forgive me for misspelling your name Ms. Bedsloe. I would like to add that I noticed on another site that you made a post expressing to Jimmy that you are thankful that he is single and that you are loving that he is single. I apologize for referring to you as just a friend in a platonic reference when it is apparently a more than “just friends” relationship the two of you share.

While this may explain why you may feel you have the right to make the comments you did in your post however if you are involved with Jimmy Burris that is all the more reason you should really keep your comments to yourself regarding how our children are doing and putting comments about their mother in print on the internet. I have seen it over and over again how these types of things have a crazy way of making it into court rooms.
TS on March 7th, 2009 2:23 pm

I think it is awesome Lisa how you have handled this situation and created good out of a bad time in your life. I commend you!
Michael on March 7th, 2009 8:24 pm

I respect you as well Lisa Burris. Although I do not know you, I thought it was awesome how you put your name on your blog (comment). My hat off to you.
Lisa Burris on March 8th, 2009 3:43 am

Thank you for the kind words TS and Michael. Kind words have been a rariety in the past for me so I truly treasure them.

My hat is off to this WGNS site for being the ONLY news outlet to report that I won my appeal and received my diversion status.

I wish I could take credit for making good out of this bad time but I do not have that supernatural ability only God can do that and He has and He continues to do so. I am so thankful for all the prayers that have been prayed for me and the children and the answers to prayers that He has given. The children and I are truly blessed.

Lisa Burris