State of Tennessee v. Eric Sims, W2016-02049-CCA-R3-CD

On Aug. 2, 2013, after a gang-related fight, Eric Sims (a Piru/Bloods gang leader) left with others to find a rival and gunfire ensued; one victim, Montarius Pigrum (17), was killed and six others were shot at but survived.
Multiple eyewitnesses placed Sims near the scene, with several identifying him as the shooter; shell casings (.357) were recovered and forensics tied them to the same gun type.
Sims was tried by jury and convicted of first-degree murder (one count), six counts of attempted first-degree murder, and six counts of employing a firearm during attempted first-degree murder.
At trial the parties had agreed evidence of gang affiliation would be admitted; Sims later sought to challenge that on appeal for the first time.
The trial court sentenced Sims to life for murder plus concurrent within-range maximum terms for attempted murders (25 years each) and consecutive sentencing was imposed overall, producing an effective sentence of life + 186 years.
Sims appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence (identification and premeditation), improper admission of gang-affiliation evidence under Rule 404(b), and excessive/consecutive sentencing. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Sims' Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence (identification)	Eyewitness IDs, defendant’s fingerprints in vehicles, recovered casings, and accomplice testimony support conviction	IDs were inconsistent/weak and some witnesses had motives to misidentify	Conviction upheld; credibility is for jury and evidence sufficient
Sufficiency of evidence (premeditation)	Circumstances (armed pursuit of unarmed victims, multiple shots, close-range fatal shot, post-crime admissions) support inference of premeditation	No proof purpose to kill formed beforehand; insufficient to show premeditation	Premeditation sufficiently inferred from circumstantial evidence; upheld
Admission of gang-affiliation evidence (Rule 404(b))	Parties agreed before and during trial to admit gang evidence; Sims made no contemporaneous objection	Admission violated Rule 404(b) and was prejudicial	Waived on appeal because Sims consented at trial and failed to raise in new-trial motion
Sentencing (length & consecutive)	Trial court properly weighed enhancement factors (extensive criminal history, leadership role, no hesitation and high risk to life) and statutory criteria for consecutive sentences (dangerous offender)	Sentences excessive; minimum term sufficient; consecutive not warranted	Sentences and consecutive running affirmed as within range and not an abuse of discretion

State v. Evans, 838 S.W.2d 185 (Tenn. 1992) (standard for sufficiency review)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (Jackson standard: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
Bolin v. State, 405 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. 1966) (deference to jury on witness credibility)
State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370 (Tenn. 2011) (sufficiency standard same for circumstantial evidence)
State v. Bland, 958 S.W.2d 651 (Tenn. 1997) (factors supporting premeditation)
State v. Bise, 380 S.W.3d 682 (Tenn. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing with presumption of reasonableness)
State v. Wilkerson, 905 S.W.2d 938 (Tenn. 1995) (requirements when imposing consecutive sentences for dangerous offender)