State of Tennessee v. Deshun Hampton, Matthew Tyler and Devonta Hampton aka Devonta Taylor, W2015-00469-CCA-R3-CD

Background

Three defendants (Matthew Tyler, Deshun Hampton, Devonta Hampton) entered open guilty pleas to multiple violent felonies (aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, employing a firearm, attempted first-degree murder (attempt), animal cruelty, etc.) arising from a series of crimes in 2012–2013, including video evidence of shooting at a security guard and shooting a dog.
Tyler and Deshun were 15–16 years old at the time of offenses; sentencing hearing considered victim testimony, video evidence, defendants’ statements, juvenile/social-history mitigation, and prison-program certificates.
Trial court applied multiple enhancement and some mitigating factors, found each defendant to be a "dangerous offender," and imposed partly-consecutive, within-range sentences: Tyler aggregate 66 years (includes an 11-year conviction not before the court), Deshun 55 years, Devonta 32 years.
Tyler and Deshun challenged their aggregate sentences as de facto life terms for juvenile nonhomicide offenders under the Eighth Amendment; all three challenged specific factor applications and the imposition of consecutive sentences.
Court considered whether attempted murder counts are "homicide" for Graham analysis, treated attempted murder as nonhomicide for purposes of Eighth Amendment juvenile sentencing jurisprudence, and evaluated parole-eligibility timing as bearing on whether aggregated term is a functional equivalent of life without parole.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether long aggregate term-of-years for juvenile nonhomicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment (Graham)	Graham applies only to LWOP; aggregate term here is not LWOP and does not categorically violate Eighth Amendment	Tyler/Deshun: 66 and 55-year aggregates are de facto life-without-parole for juveniles and thus unconstitutional	Court: No Eighth Amendment violation — sentences allow meaningful opportunity for release (parole eligibility calculated), so not functional equivalent of LWOP
Whether attempted first-degree murder should be treated as homicide for Graham/Miller purposes	Treating attempted murder as homicide would remove Graham protection; State did not convincingly argue otherwise	Defendants relied on Graham protections because attempted murder is nonhomicide	Court: Analyzed attempted murder as nonhomicide under Graham framework
Whether trial court abused discretion in applying enhancement/mitigating factors (leadership, prior criminal behavior, youth, program completion)	Trial court properly considered factors, applied enhancements (leadership, history, use of firearm) and mitigations (youth, program completion); even if one factor misapplied, overall within-range sentence supported	Defendants argued misapplication/insufficient weight to youth and cooperation; Tyler disputed leader and prior-history findings; Deshun challenged enhancement on animal cruelty	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court made specific findings, applied factors, and sentences were within statutory ranges and justified by other sentencing considerations
Whether partially consecutive sentences were improper (dangerous offender/extensive record)	Trial court found dangerous-offender basis (T.C.A. §40-35-115(b)(4)) with Wilkerson findings (aggregate reasonably related to offenses and necessary to protect public); this supports consecutive terms	Defendants argued lack of basis: not extensive prior record and aggregate not reasonably related/proportionate	Court: Affirmed consecutive sentences — trial court made requisite findings for dangerous-offender category and did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (discusses Eighth Amendment proportionality)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (juveniles are constitutionally different for sentencing; death penalty for juveniles prohibited)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (life without parole for juvenile nonhomicide offenders unconstitutional; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (mandatory LWOP for juveniles unconstitutional; youth must be considered)
Bunch v. Smith, 685 F.3d 546 (6th Cir.) (aggregate consecutive terms exceeding life expectancy did not get habeas relief; Graham did not resolve consecutive-term question)
Moore v. Biter, 725 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir.) (found aggregate lengthy term unconstitutional where no meaningful opportunity for release)
State v. Pollard, 432 S.W.3d 851 (Tenn. 2013) (standard for appellate review of consecutive sentences; Wilkerson requirements)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review and standing of within-range sentences)
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 933 (Tenn. 1995) (when labeling a defendant a "dangerous offender," court must also find aggregate sentence reasonably related to offenses and necessary to protect public)
State v. Herron, 461 S.W.3d 890 (Tenn. 2015) (clarifies abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing)