State of Tennessee v. David Hopkins, E2016-02192-CCA-R3-CD

In 1994 Tony Barrett (victim), a known marijuana dealer, was found beaten to death in his home; a blood-covered metal baseball bat was recovered and the house had been ransacked.
Kimberly Sutton (defendant’s estranged wife) testified at trial she saw David Hopkins standing over the victim with a baseball bat; she and David Riggs then searched the house and removed money and about ten pounds of marijuana.
The case went cold after Sutton initially recanted to police; years later she implicated Hopkins again. Other witnesses (Barry Roark, Bradley Radcliff, Misty Humphrey) corroborated post hoc admissions or identifications linking Hopkins to the killing and robbery.
Hopkins put forward an alibi-style defense (testimony placing him with acquaintances most of the day) and argued witnesses had learned or amplified details from media or police.
A jury convicted Hopkins of first-degree felony murder in 2014; the trial court imposed life imprisonment to run consecutively to an earlier federal sentence. Hopkins appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence and the imposition of consecutive sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder (intent to commit robbery concurrent with killing)	State: evidence (Sutton’s ID, scene ransacked, missing money/drugs, Hopkins’ prior thefts and post-crime admissions) permits inference Hopkins intended robbery at or before the killing	Hopkins: witnesses were inconsistent or learned details later; testimony did not prove he intended to steal before or during the killing	Affirmed — a rational jury could infer intent to rob concurrent with the killing from the totality of the evidence
Consecutive sentence to federal term	State: trial court properly found statutory grounds (professional criminal, extensive record; possibly dangerous offender) supporting consecutive sentence	Hopkins: consecutive life was excessive; court failed to make required Wilkerson finding that consecutive terms were necessary to protect the public if relying on dangerous-offender status	Affirmed — trial court articulated statutory grounds (professional criminal and extensive record); Rule 32(c)(2)(B) also presumes consecutive service absent good cause to run concurrent

State v. Wagner, 382 S.W.3d 289 (Tenn. 2012) (sufficiency standard; intent to commit underlying felony evaluated by jury)
State v. Buggs, 995 S.W.2d 102 (Tenn. 1999) (felony-murder intent must exist prior to or concurrent with fatal act; post‑killing actions may support inference)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (constitutional standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Banks, 271 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. 2008) (felony murder requires killing to be in pursuance of the unlawful act, not collateral to it)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard and presumption of reasonableness for consecutive sentencing)
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (additional findings required when imposing consecutive sentences based on dangerous-offender classification)
State v. Imfeld, 70 S.W.3d 698 (Tenn. 2002) (sentencing principles: punishment must be reasonably related to offense seriousness and no greater than deserved)