State of Tennessee v. Anthony Jackson, W2015-01403-CCA-R3-CD

On June 5, 2012, Anthony Jackson ("Amp") confronted a man known as "Black" outside DJ's Grocery; later that evening Jackson returned, confronted the victim (a friend of Black), produced a gun and shot the victim in the leg, then pursued him into the store firing additional shots while threatening to collect Black's debt and to kill the victim.
The victim identified Jackson from a photospread and police located a store security-camera video corroborating the shooting.
Jackson was indicted for attempted first‑degree premeditated murder, employing a firearm with intent to commit a felony, and being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
A jury convicted Jackson of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter, employing a firearm with intent to commit a felony, and convicted felon in possession of a firearm.
At sentencing the trial court imposed 12 years (attempted voluntary manslaughter), 15 years (employing a firearm), and 15 years (felon in possession) to run consecutively, for an effective 42‑year term, finding Jackson a dangerous offender with an extensive criminal history.
Jackson appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient and the sentence was excessive; the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence (convictions)	Enough evidence (victim ID + video) supports convictions	Victim testimony inconsistent; insufficient to convict	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, rational juror could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt (jury credited victim; video corroborated)
Consecutive sentencing / designation as dangerous offender	Consecutive sentences proper given dangerous‑offender finding, aggravated circumstances, and extensive criminal record	Court erred in finding dangerous offender and failed to make required Wilkerson findings	Affirmed: trial court articulated reasons (shots fired in public, aggravated circumstances, extensive violent criminal history) and did not abuse discretion; consecutive sentences upheld

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (presumption of reasonableness for within‑range sentences and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (requirements for appellate review of consecutive sentences and need for trial court articulation)
Wilkerson v. State, 905 S.W.2d 936 (dangerous‑offender consecutive sentencing standard and Wilkerson factors)
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (necessity of specific factual findings when imposing dangerous‑offender consecutive sentences)