State of Tennessee v. David Richardson, W2016-00174-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Defendant David Richardson participated with two co-defendants in a prolonged drive‑by style gun assault from a house on Helmwood toward a Fourth of July gathering at 2706 Northmeade Avenue; 68 rounds were fired and one victim, Kimberly Jamerson, was killed.
A jury convicted Richardson of first‑degree premeditated murder, multiple counts of attempted first‑degree murder, aggravated assault, employment of a firearm during a dangerous felony, and reckless endangerment.
Original sentencing produced life plus an effective 224 years; this court affirmed convictions but remanded for a limited resentencing on whether consecutive sentences were proper under State v. Wilkerson.
On remand the trial court held a sentencing hearing, heard Richardson’s allocution and evidence of remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and prison conduct, but again found consecutive sentences appropriate.
The trial court classified Richardson as a “dangerous offender” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40‑35‑115(b)(4), concluded extended/consecutive sentences were necessary to protect the public and reasonably related to the offense severity, and reimposed the original consecutive terms.
The Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion with a presumption of reasonableness and affirmed the trial court’s consecutive sentencing determination.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Richardson)	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were proper under Tenn. Code Ann. § 40‑35‑115(b)	Trial court may find Richardson a dangerous offender given the extreme violence, and consecutive sentences are needed to protect the public and relate to offense severity	Court relied on crime facts only; Wilkerson requires meaningful findings about future dangerousness and the trial court failed to adequately articulate both Wilkerson factors	Affirmed: trial court’s findings supported by record; consecutive sentences appropriate under dangerous‑offender factor
Whether the trial court adequately found Wilkerson factors (necessity to protect public and proportionality to offense)	Findings about brutality, scope, and risk to life suffice to show necessity and proportionality	Argues lack of prior record and expressions of remorse undermine future‑danger finding; court focused on past conduct not future risk	Affirmed: court’s detailed factual findings show Wilkerson factors satisfied and reasonably related to severity
Whether defendant’s minimal past record precludes dangerous‑offender designation	Current offenses can inform criminal history and support consecutive sentencing	Minimal prior record and evidence of rehabilitation weigh against consecutive sentences	Rejected: present convictions and the nature of the offenses justify consecutive terms even if prior record is minimal
Whether any error in dangerous‑offender finding would require resentencing under a different § 40‑35‑115(b) factor	Even if dangerous‑offender finding were erroneous, consecutive sentencing could be justified based on defendant’s extensive current criminal activity	N/A	Court notes alternative basis: current offenses may be used to justify consecutive sentencing; no abuse of discretion found

Key Cases Cited

State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (sets two Wilkerson requirements for consecutive sentences: necessity to protect the public and reasonable relation to offense severity)
State v. Lane, 3 S.W.3d 456 (Tenn. 1999) (explains trial court must find extended sentence necessary to protect the public when invoking dangerous‑offender ground)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (standard of review for consecutive sentencing is abuse of discretion with presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (contrasts intoxication/impulsive conduct cases from those involving premeditated/knowing mass shooter conduct)
State v. Cummings, 868 S.W.2d 661 (Tenn. Crim. App.) (current offenses may be used in determining criminal history for consecutive sentencing)